Evaluation of Capital Modernisation Funding for Electronic ...

RESEARCHEvaluation of Capital ModernisationFunding for Electronic Registrationin Selected Secondary SchoolsGeoff Lindsay 1 , Daniel Muijs 2 , Dimitra Hartas 3 and Sue Band 11 Centre for Educational Development, Appraisal and Research (CEDAR),University of Warwick2 University of Manchester3 Institute of Education, University of WarwickResearch Report RR759

Research ReportNo 759Evaluation of Capital ModernisationFunding for Electronic Registrationin Selected Secondary SchoolsGeoff Lindsay 1 , Daniel Muijs 2 , Dimitra Hartas 3 and Sue Band 11Centre for Educational Development, Appraisal and Research (CEDAR),University of Warwick2 University of Manchester3Institute of Education, University of WarwickThe views expressed in this report are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department forEducation and Skills.© CEDAR, University of Warwick 2006ISBN 1 84478 747 8

ContentsExecutive Summary 31. Introduction and Background 122. The Study 153. Impact on e-registration on schools’ authorised and unauthorised absence 194. Efficiency, Effectiveness and Usefulness of e-registration 355. Wider Effectiveness 666. Conclusions and recommendations 71References 79AppendicesA Methodology 80B 2004 Questionnaire 86C 2005 Questionnaire 90D Interview schedules for 2 nd visits 93E Case Study schools 100F Full details of Table 8 105AcknowledgementsWe would like to acknowledge the important contribution of the consultant to the project DrRay Evans, City of Coventry and Mr Chris Hasluck, Institute of Employment Research at theUniversity of Warwick and of the DfES Steering Group.2

Executive SummaryThis report presents evidence from a study of the government’s capital modernisationprogramme to support the installation of e-registration systems in secondary schools inEngland with the highest levels of unauthorised absence provided they did not already havean e-registration system other than one based on an optical mark reader. These areelectronic systems that enable schools to take the register twice daily, as a minimum, tomeet legal requirements. In practice, and especially over the course of this 3-year project,additional facilities increased substantially, e.g. to include lesson monitoring and means toalert parents by text message. Hence, this was and continues to be a rapidly evolving field:in the near future it may be expected that greater use will be made of biometric data, forexample. A total budget of £11.25 million was made available to fund systems in 538schools, starting from 2002. The evaluation took place over the period April 2002 toDecember 2005.The aims of the study were to examine:• The impact of e-registration systems on schools’ unauthorised and authorisedabsence, including internal/post-registration truancy;• The efficiency, effectiveness and usefulness of e-registration systems, including acomparison between systems; and• The wider effectiveness of e-registration contributing to links with Local Authoritiesand in particular Education Welfare Services.Key Findings• Electronic registration can play an important role in helping schools with high rates ofabsence to improve attendance but as one of a broad range of initiatives includingthe creation of a positive school climate and developing a relevant curriculum.• The rates of both unauthorised and authorised absence in the study schools haveshown reductions which are greater than the national trend.• Academic achievement, as measured by GCSE Grades A*-C or equivalent,increased in e-registration schools to a greater degree than the national average.3

• Although most schools found the setting up and implementation of their systemrelatively straightforward, a significant minority of schools experienced substantialinitial difficulties. Nevertheless, once established, four out of five schools rated theirsystem as meeting their needs.• E-registration saved time in the taking of registers but overall there was no cleartime-saving for teaching or administrative staff. This was due to two types of factors:o Positive factors, e.g. schools having more data which they found useful, butneeded to analyse and act upon; ando Negative factors, e.g. faults in the system and incompatibility between the e-registration and other data management systems within the school.• Lesson monitoring was particularly beneficial, providing a form of continuousattendance monitoring over the day.• There were benefits from quick and easy notification to parents of their child’sabsence.• E-registration was considered good value for money by two thirds of these schools,but was rated only seventh out of nine factors for reducing absence; the mosteffective were considered to be the creation of a positive school climate anddeveloping a relevant curriculum.MethodsVisits were undertaken to 46 schools on two occasions to interview a member of the seniormanagement team (SMT); Year 7, 10 and 11 tutors; attendance administrative officers andeducational welfare officers. Third visits were also undertaken to a small number of schoolsat the very end of the project. A total of 414 interviews were carried out. Surveys werecarried out with the remaining project schools in 2004 and 2005 with response rates of66.7% (N=307) and 65.6% (N=300) respectively and interviews were held with 10 suppliersof e-registration systems. Finally, an analysis was conducted of the DfES database forschool level attendance and achievement data to compare the project schools with thenational picture.Summary of findings4

a) Impact on absence and achievementSchools were consistently positive over the period of the project in seeing e-registration asuseful in providing information on absence but were split on whether either authorised orunauthorised absence had decreased as a result of e-registration. However, our analysis ofthe data for e-registration schools indicates that absence, particularly unauthorised absence,decreased over the period of the project: 2002-2005, an improvement greater than thenational trend.This positive outcome must, however, be interpreted in relation to the downward trend innational rates of absence and also the difficulty in isolating the influence of e-registration.The project commenced in April 2002, but many schools took at least a year, or more, beforetheir system was in full operation. A further factor concerns the relative impact of e-registration compared with other initiatives – our research indicated that while schools werepositive about e-registration they placed it seventh out of nine factors that they consideredeffective in reducing absence.Lesson monitoring was viewed positively with over half of schools considering it had led to adecrease in absence. By the end of the project, most schools had moved or were movingtowards including lesson monitoring.In summary, and taking into account these caveats, our judgment is that it is reasonable toconsider that e-registration has had an influence in these schools on the reduction of bothauthorised and unauthorised absence.• The percentage of authorised absence decreased in project schools from 8.8%(2001-2002) to 7.5% (2004-2005), a reduction of 1.5 percentage points against thenational trend of 1.4 percentage points (7.6% reducing to 6.2%).• Unauthorised absence reduced from 2.3% to 2.2% over this period while the nationalpercentage increased from 1.1% to 1.3%.• The percentage of pupils gaining 5 grades A* to C at GCSE or equivalent increasedfrom 33.6% (2001-02) to 41.4% (2004-05) an increase of 7.8 percentage pointsagainst a national trend of 5.7 percentage points (51.6% to 57.3%).• Caution must be exercised in interpreting these data as many schools were alsoengaged in other initiatives to reduce absence.5

It had been anticipated that e-registration would save staff time. While this was the case forthe recording of data, over half of schools by 2005 disagreed that e-registration had releasedteaching staff time and about two thirds disagreed that admin staff time had been releasedfor other work. Various reasons for this included the need to sort out problems resultingfrom the e-registration system including incompatible data systems. Some of theseproblems might be expected to lessen with greater familiarity and software development.Indeed positive schools reported favourably on time saved in analysis and report production.Other increased demands could be seen as positive as the greater availability of informationand means of contacting parents, for example, allowed more and speedier actions. Over80% of schools were positive about the increased collaboration with other agencies resultingfrom e-registration. To summarise these findings:• Nine out of ten schools considered that e-registration provided useful information onauthorised and unauthorised absence.• Only a third of schools considered it released teaching staff for other work and lessthan a third considered this occurred for admin staff.• Three quarters of schools were satisfied with the installation but one in fiveconsidered it poor.• Seven out of 10 schools considered the training received in the operation of their e-registration system was good but one in five considered it poor.• Immediate after sales service was judged good by only 6 out of 10 schools andalmost a third reported it as poor.• Three quarters of schools considered their e-registration system to be reliable, butalmost a quarter disagreed.• E-registration was seen as adequate for the school’s needs, easy to use to provideuseful information to staff and parents, and helped to manage absence moreeffectively by between 8 and 9 out of 10 schools.• However, fewer than half of schools considered their e-registration provided easycomparison with other data, mainly because of problems in achieving systemcompatibility.• Half of schools believed that the accurate recording provided by e-registration led toan increase in recorded absence.• Seven out of 10 schools would recommend e-registration to other schools.• Two thirds considered it good value for money.7

c) E-registration within the wider contextAlthough there were difficulties with e-registration, it is reasonable to conclude that schoolsin general were positive about its contribution to their attempts to reduce absence. Abouttwo thirds considered it good value for money and would recommend their system to otherschools. However, schools were unable to provide accurate data to allow a value for moneyanalysis to check their impressions. The analysis of absence and attainment data givesgrounds for a cautious conclusion that this capital modernisation programme has contributedto a reduction in authorised and unauthorised absence in these schools which previouslyhad the highest levels of absence. These are positive findings.It is also necessary to contextualise the benefits of e-registration within the wider range ofinitiatives that schools have undertaken. In this case it is also important to note that theproject schools were also characterised, in general, by high levels of social disadvantage.These schools rated e-registration only seventh of a list of nine possible absence reductionfactors, in both 2004 and 2005. Furthermore, in 2005 only 2.4% ranked it first. The mosthighly rated overall were: first, creating a positive school climate and second, developing arelevant curriculum; these were rated first choice by 46.0% and 25.1% of schoolsrespectively. Discussions with school staff reinforced these relative rankings. In short, e-registration was seen as another important tool to aid schools tackle absence but of moreimportance was getting schooling right for the pupils.E-registration was found to be very useful in supporting the collaboration between the schooland its education welfare officer (EWO). Rapid access to the data and the facility to explorepatterns, where this was used, improved the effectiveness of joint working. However, thiswas at the school level and we found much less evidence of a wider impact on practice atthe LA level. For example, consideration of absence data was essentially a matter for theschool and its EWO rather than the LA and Education Welfare Service using the data forstrategic purposes.• Over four out of five schools reported e-registration had improved collaboration withother agencies.• Schools rated e-registration 7 th of 9 approaches to reducing absence in both 2004and 2005 as shown in the table below. The most effective were considered to be thecreation of a positive school climate and developing a relevant curriculum.Mean rankings of absence reduction factors in 2004 and 2005 (%)8

2004 2005Creating a positive school climate 2.5 2.4Developing a relevant curriculum for disaffected pupils 3.1 3.0Developing good relationships with parents 3.5 3.4Focussing on pupil achievement 4.3 4.2Using rewards for good attendance 4.6 4.5Having a clear discipline policy 5.6 5.6Using an e-registration system 5.8 5.7Punishing parents of consistent non-attenders 7.5 7.5Using punishments for poor attendance 7.8 7.7It can reasonably be concluded that e-registration has had a positive impact on bothauthorised and unauthorised absence, although the impact may be less than the dataindicate owing to the schools’ differential engagement in a number of other initiatives aimedto reduce absence.RecommendationsAll the DfES suppliers presented e-registration as an integrated system, facilitating a rangeof functions in addition to morning and afternoon registration. As a foundation for thesuccessful implementation of e-registration, there is a need for schools to make anadequately informed choice of system to suit their particular profile. Suppliers’ assertion thatthis does not always happen is supported by the fact that several schools in our samplefound a need to change their system, having discovered too late a mismatch betweensystem and school profile.• We recommend, therefore, that a framework of guidance should be provided forschools prior to purchasing an e-registration system, supporting them in identifyingand prioritising their requirements.Information from the study and discussions with DfES and BECTA have highlighted thecapabilities and characteristics expected of e-registration systems that can monitor andmanage attendance effectively.9

• We recommend that the DfES, in collaboration with BECTA, should produce a list ofspecifications for e-registration systems.At the same time, we emphasize the commitment of school staff and other agencies (e.g.EWOs) that is needed to operate, analyse, interpret and act upon the data produced, andadd that for many members of staff at all levels this will entail learning and maintaining newskills.• We recommend that schools implement the following measures to engendercommitment to the initiative and support for new skills acquisition, acknowledging themeasures already taken by many schools:- Initial training of teaching staff to implement the attendance systemsaccurately;- Initial training for administrative staff to administer the system across theschool and produce reports;- Second level training in data analysis and the integration of attendance andother data (e.g. attainment);- Appropriate levels of ITC support staff and capability to maintain systemsand repair faults speedily;- A continuing programme of training to aid implementation of later additionsand upgrades to the e-registration system;- Development of a policy on the use of e-registration by supply teachers; and- Development of an effective two-way liaison between the school and its EWOto optimise use of e-registration data.The study has highlighted many cases where the redeployment of administrative staff,and/or creation of new posts, has been necessitated by the production of more data with theadvent of e-registration, combined with the school’s increased focus upon attendance issuesand the effects of compliance with new legislation on teachers’ contracts.• We recommend that schools embarking on e-registration consider carefully theimplications for staff resourcing, seeking out effective practice in other schools.Overall, for various reasons, schools expressed only sketchy knowledge of what their e-registration system had cost and what future level of costs might be incurred, though some10

were optimistic that the system will prove its worth in terms of improvements in attendancelevels.• We recommend that where such knowledge is lacking, schools should engage fully incost/benefit analysis, including procurement and running costs such as repairs andupgrades.There is also a benefit in further, more detailed study of the systems in action, for survey andinterview data have provided evidence that schools do recognise e-registration as a usefultool in addressing attendance issues.• We recommend that the DfES should consider an examination of developing practicein relation to the linkage between high quality and timely attendance data, andplanned interventions.This work could include strategies that cover the whole pupil population, and those thatfocus on particular groups of children identified as at risk of poor attendance and pooreducational outcomes, e.g. looked after children. This could be undertaken at both schooland local authority level as a basis for developing good practice guidelines.11

1. Introduction and BackgroundRaising educational standards for all our young people requires re-thinking and readdressingimportant issues, including school attendance, exclusion and adaptive behaviour.There are many indicators of disaffection in schools, from disruptive behaviour and bullyingto unauthorised absence and prolonged truancy. Children who do not attend school areputting themselves at risk of reduced levels of attainment and impaired life chances, togetherwith enhanced danger of involvement with anti-social behaviour outside the school.This project arose as part of the government’s strategy to address these issues. TheGovernment had been looking to schools to help reduce unauthorised absence by one thirdby 2002 with this target being the overall aim of a strategy mapped out by the SocialExclusion Unit. However, after a steady increase in attendance from 92.6% in 1994/5 to93.0% in 1998/9 (OHMCI, 2001), there was a reverse in 2000/01 to 90.9% (OHMCI, 2002).The Capital Modernisation programme to support the development of electronic registrationsystems in secondary schools was one of the government’s initiatives to reduce nonattendance.Some disturbing statistics to illustrate the magnitude of the problem at the start of this projectare as follows: In London it was estimated that five per cent of all offences were committedby children during school hours; on any given day 400,000 pupils who should be at schoolwere absent, and at least 50,000 were off school without permission; annually, more than150,000 young people were out of school on fixed-term exclusion (1-45 days) (Wicks, 2000).The social ramifications are summarised in the following statement:'By reducing the levels of truancy and school exclusions we will effectively cut off oneof the main supply routes to welfare dependency, joblessness and criminalbehaviour. The reality is that today's truants are often tomorrow's unemployed' (Byersas stated in Archer, 1998).A variety of inter-related circumstances that lead to young people truanting from school hadbeen identified by the Social Exclusion Unit, Truancy and School Exclusion (1998). Theseinclude poverty, lack of future job opportunities, peer pressure, bullying, learning difficulties,a curriculum seen as boring and irrelevant and the crucial role of parental supervision andcommitment to education. The report also went on to draw attention to the impact of schoolorganisation and ethos:The importance of what happens in schools in shaping truancy can be gauged by thewide variations in truancy levels between schools that appear to have similar intakes.12

DfEE research has found that there is ample evidence that schools can and do havea significant impact in improving attendance and reducing disaffection. This is borneout by the wide variations between regions and between schools. For example, thelevel of unauthorised absence in Manchester is four and a half times that in SouthTyneside and nearly nine times that in Oxfordshire. And there are many examples ofschools with similar intakes and results but very different truancy rates. (p.5)There was also evidence that some groups of children, such as those being looked after bylocal authorities featured disproportionately among truanting pupils. Garnett (1994) foundthat fewer than half of Year 11 children looked after in Humberside were reported to attendschool regularly. The SSI/Ofsted report (1995) indicated a high non-attendance rate of 8.4per cent of looked after children across all ages. Research in Coventry (Evans 2000)revealed that the majority of looked after children had good school attendance at primaryschool but that a minority were likely to miss significant amounts of schooling. The problembecame more acute with age and from Year 9, almost a quarter of children in care attendedfor less than 70 per cent of the time.Monitoring and controlling school attendance were considered essential, together with aclear policy on attendance, known to staff, pupils and parents. However, pupil registration isa complex and time-consuming process. For each pupil, the register must be marked eitheras present, engaged in an approved educational activity away from the school site or absent,twice a day. If the pupil is absent, the register must say whether or not the absence hasbeen authorised by the school. Even if pupils are present at the time of registration, theymay leave the premises subsequently.It is mainly within the past few years that government pressure on LAs and schools toreduce absence has increased, in addition to any school or LA initiatives that might also beunderway. This is part of the government’s agenda to improve standards. Attendance perse is an important factor but it is also a contributor to academic achievement, as notedabove.The present research examined the effectiveness of using electronic registration (eregistration)as an aid to reducing absenteeism. An earlier study (More Willingly to School:Learmouth, 1996) provided support for electronic systems, but also highlighted problemsimplementing the then main methods: the Optical Mark Reader (OMR), swipecard andcomputer-based systems. But technology develops quickly and the government determinedto fund a capital modernisation programme of £11.25 million to support the development of13

e-registration in 538 secondary schools. The criteria for the scheme were that the schoolwas in the group with the highest levels of unauthorised absence over the previous threeyears and did not have an e-registration system (other than an OMR).A total of 538 schools were allocated grants under the scheme specified to support thepurchase and installation of an e-registration system, although it was not expected that thegrant would necessarily cover all costs. Bids had to specify the system proposed, which wasrequired to be approved by the DfES. At the start of this process only a small number ofsystems were available, but the number increased over the project. Some systems have hada change of name; to avoid confusion the most current name will be used in this report. Thenumbers of schools also changed slightly as a result of closures, amalgamations andchanges of status e.g. academies.14

2. The study2.1 Aims and objectivesThe main aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of electronic registration. This aim wassubdivided into three components, to examine:• The impact of e-registration systems on schools’ unauthorised and authorisedabsence, including internal/post-registration truancy• The efficiency, effectiveness and usefulness of e-registration systems, including acomparison between systems• The wider effectiveness of e-registration contributing to links with Local Authoritiesand in particular Education Welfare Services.These required examination of:• Each electronic registration system• A comparative evaluation of these systems• The interface between each system per se and schools as institutions, i.e. a widersystems effectiveness evaluation• A comparative analysis of these total systemsThis approach recognises that each system must be evaluated within the working context ofschools. In this conceptualisation ‘schools’ include the contributors from other agencies, ofwhich the Education Welfare Service is primary for the present focus. The objectives of theevaluation were:• To establish the efficiency, effectiveness, cost effectiveness and value for money ofe-registration as a tool for reducing unauthorised absence;• To establish the efficiency, effectiveness, cost effectiveness and value for money ofeach of the different systems for reducing unauthorised absence taking account ofthe context of the individual schools, for example school population, split sites;• To examine the process of implementation of the systems within schools in terms ofefficiency and effectiveness;15

• To examine the efficiency and effectiveness of the services given to schools by theproviders over the course of the project;• To examine the impact of systems in reducing bureaucracy in schools and reducingburdens on teachers and other staff;• To establish the existence of any spill over effects, such as on authorised absence,student behaviour and crime;• To establish the effect of reducing unauthorised absence on attainment; and• To examine the differential effects of the policy on disadvantaged students subject todata availability. These, for example, could include differential effects by gender,ethnic group, socio-economic background, disability, special educational needs andthose students for whom English is a second language.2.2 The studyFull details of the design and methodology for this study are provided in Appendix A. Thepresent section presents a summary overview.The design comprised four strands contributing to a combined methods study of e-registration, mostly at school level but also including interviews with 10 suppliers of e-registration systems to explore their perspectives. It was not possible to carry out theintended value for money analysis as schools were unable to provide data with any degreeof accuracy. Also, it was agreed that a comparative study of the different systems availableshould not be carried out, for several reasons. Firstly, the numbers of schools using theavailable systems at the start of the project varied greatly. Two companies supplied themajority of the project schools (Capita SIMS about half of the schools and Bromcom over aquarter), with Facility and PARS together supplying about one in six schools and eight othersystems with very small market shares among the project schools supplying about 5% ofschools. This skewed distribution would prove problematic for analysis and the possibility tocompare the main suppliers only was not considered appropriate. Secondly, individualschools’ introduction of their systems at different times made fair comparisons impossiblewithout detailed specifications for each school. This was not practical, not least because16

schools often phased in their system. Thirdly, in an evolving field it was apparent that newsuppliers could, and indeed did, enter the market, and would not be included in the systemcomparison. Finally, the schools’ inability to provide accurate information to enable a valuefor money analysis undermined any attempt to conduct a comparative analysis of thesystems.2.2.1 Case studiesA total of 46 schools were selected for study, chosen to reflect, firstly, the relativeproportions of use of the various e-registration systems and secondly to ensure an adequateregional and urban/rural representation. Checks were also made with respect to socialdisadvantage but the total sample of Project schools was characterised by higher levels ofthis factor. Two cohorts were identified to reflect different phases of the Project and hence astaggered take-up, although in practice there was a substantial delay in most schools gettingunderway and there was no clear time difference between cohorts. Schools were visited ontwo occasions wherever possible, but over the period of the project some closed or wereamalgamated or changed status (e.g. to an Academy).Interviews were held with a sample of key staff in each school, namely a member of thesenior management team, the Education Welfare Officer, Attendance /Administrative Officer,and the Year 7, 10 and 11 tutors (see Appendix D pro formas). These interviews includedinformation about the school and its context but focussed primarily on the use of the e-registration system in the school. This varied across the two sets of visits with the firstconcentrating on the early set installation, training and early indicators of reliability, supportfrom suppliers, effectiveness in reducing absence, and impact on behaviour and attainment.It was accepted that many opinions would be tentative given the early stage ofimplementation. The second visits focussed on the system in its more ‘bedded in’ phasewhen schools could reasonably be able to give opinions based on extended experience.Finally, a third set of visits were made to a small number of cohort 1 schools near the end ofthe Project to obtain their most recent opinions.2.2.2 SurveysTwo surveys were carried out with non-case study schools, in summer 2004 and autumn2005, with good response rates of 66.7% and 65.6% from the 460 and 456 schoolsrespectively. These surveys mirrored the interviews and also reflected the early and moremature stages of the project. Hence, the first focussed on the installation and early indicators17

of the systems’ effectiveness while the second sought schools’ opinions on the systems andtheir effectiveness in reducing absence, and other benefits.2.2.3 Analysis of data-setsThe third approach was to examine the DfES data regarding absence and attainment in theProject schools and their comparison with national trends, over the period of the Projectcompared with the previous period.2.2.4 Suppliers’ perspectivesInterviews were held with ten of the companies providing e-registration systems, including allthe major suppliers in terms of market share. The sample also included examples of differenttypes of technology.2.2.5 Value for moneyOriginally it was planned to undertake a value for money analysis of the e-registrationsystems but it was found that schools were unable to produce reliable and valid (or, in manycases, any) estimates of costs other than original purchase; schools could not provide stafftime spent administering the system, maintenance, teacher time and hardware costs.Consequently, qualitative information on value for money was obtained from thequestionnaires sent to schools and in the interviews with members of the seniormanagement teams.18

3. Impact of e-registration on schools' authorised and unauthorised absenceIn Sections 3, 4 and 5 we present the results from the surveys conducted in 2004 and 2005together with information derived from the case studies. The present Section focuses on theimpact of e-registration on authorised and unauthorised absence and begins with ananalysis of the school level data on absence and achievement for the e-registration schools.Comparisons are made with the national secondary school data-set as any improvements,and there are indeed improvements, must be evaluated against the national trends wherethere have also been positive developments.Both authorised and unauthorised absence rates are examined as schools are required toreturn this information to the DfES. Guidance is provided by the DfES to attempt tostandardise the definition attributed to different types of absence. However, it is important torecognise that the school decides which absence is coded as authorised, hence a degree ofvariation exists between schools in deciding whether absence is authorised or unauthorised.Also, although there are good reasons for this distinction between authorised andunauthorised absence, ultimately with respect to pupils’ progress it is absence per se that isthe key factor. Consequently we also refer to total absence in this section.3.1 E-Registration: Quantitative Data Analysis3.1.1 Evolution of attendance figuresThe capital modernisation programme began in 2002. However, while some schools withinthe programme installed and began implementing e-registration in that year, typically fromthe September, most took longer, not starting until September 2003 or even later. Also,many schools brought e-registration into operation in phases. Consequently, it is notpossible to specify a single starting point for the e-registration programme as a whole inorder to compare the effects of the programme on absence. However, 2003 will be used asthe time when any effect might be expected to start to appear, representing the data for theschool year 2002-2003. Any effects would increase over the period 2003 onwards as moreschools became fully operational. Caution must be exercised in interpreting the followingdata, therefore, as, if there are any e-registration effects on absence they will be underrepresentedin the early period as not all schools were fully operational.Table 1 shows that prior to the e-registration project (until 2001-02) absence in secondaryschools showed both increases and decreases with no clear trend. Table 2 presents thechanges in absence between different years in terms of percentage points.19

Table 1 Authorised and unauthorised absence – % half days missedPeriod Authorised absence Unauthorised absence Total absencee-registration National e-registration National e-registration Nationalschoolsschoolsschools97-98 9.2 7.9 2.3 1.1 11.5 9.098-99 9.0 7.8 2.4 1.1 11.4 8.999-00 8.9 7.6 2.4 1.0 11.3 8.600-01 9.3 8.0 2.4 1.1 11.7 9.001-02 8.8 7.6 2.3 1.1 11.1 8.702-03 8.1 7.2 2.2 1.1 10.3 8.303-04 7.7 6.9 2.0 1.1 9.7 8.104-05 7.3 6.2 2.2 1.3 9.5 7.5NBPeriod of e-registration is shown in bold italicsOverall there was a strong reduction in absence, and in particular in authorised absence, inschools involved in the e-registration project. Authorised absences has gone down by 1.9%since 1998, and unauthorised absences reduced by 0.1% (see Table 2, row 98-05). Thisdecline coincides with the period schools were involved in e-registration, as a small drop inthe period 1998-2000 was negated by an increase in 2001. Also, and of particular relevanceto the timeframe of the project, the period 2001-02 to 2004-05 saw reductions in authorisedabsence of 1.5% and unauthorised absence of 0.1% against national trends of a reduction of1.4% and an increase of 0.2% respectively (Table 2, row 02-05). Furthermore, the gapbetween the e-registration schools, which were, of course, selected specifically because oftheir high levels of absenteeism, and the national average for total absence rate declinedfrom 2.5% in 1998 to 2.0% in 2005. Again, more specifically for the period 2001-02 to 2004-05, this drop in the gap between e-registration and the national average reduced from 2.4%to 2.0%. It is notable that the faster rate of reduced absences from 2002-04 was no longerthe case in 2005, where absence rates dropped more rapidly in non-e-registration schools.20

Table 2 Change in Authorised and unauthorised absence – % half days missedPeriod Authorised absence Unauthorised absence Total absencee-registration National e-registration National e-registration Nationalschoolsschoolsschools98-05 -1.9 -1.7 -0.1 +0.2 -2.0 -1.598-01 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 0 +0.2 -01-05 -2.0 -1.1 -0.4 -0.1 -2.0 -0.902-05 -1.5 -1.4 -0.1 +0.2 -1.6 -1.204-05 -0.4 -0.7 +0.2 +0.2 -0.2 -0.603-04 -0.3 -0.3 -0.2 0 -0.6 -0.203-02 -0.7 -0.4 -0.1 0 -0.8 -0.402-01 -0.5 -0.4 -0.1 0 -0.6 -0.3NBPeriod of e-registration is shown in bold italicsIt would, furthermore, not be accurate to attribute the full extent of this decline to theprogramme. Firstly, it is clear that a similar pattern of decreasing total absence levels isevident as part of the national picture. Here too, a small decline over the 1998-2000 period (-0.4%) is followed by a rebound in 2000-01 and a sharper decline (-1.2%) in the 2002-2005period, the time the e-registration programme was being implemented. Therefore, while thedecline in the e-registration schools was stronger in all years except for 2004-05, itessentially mirrors the national pattern. Possible explanations for this stronger decrease inthe e-registration schools may result from the use of e-registration, though otherexplanations are plausible. The main three explanations are:- Implementation of e-registration.- Implementation of other strategies aimed to decrease absenteeism. A greaterattention to absence issues is likely in these schools as they are faced with pressureto address this issue in the light of their high levels of absence.- Regression to the mean and ceiling effects. As these schools are starting from a lowbaseline in terms of attendance, it is likely that at least some of these schools wouldshow an improvement towards mean levels of absence. Furthermore, some schoolsin the national sample have such low levels of absenteeism that it is hard for them toimprove further, creating what is in effect a ceiling effect within that group.It also has to be remarked that some schools not in the project will nevertheless be using e-registration systems to address attendance. This would impact on the attendance rates of21

the national data to an unknown extent. However, this factor would tend to reduce theapparent difference in improvement by the project schools as the improvement by nonprojectschools. On the other hand, the use of e-registration could lead to an increase inrecorded absence as a result of an improved system of recording, a factor mentioned byabout half of the project schools (see Figure 15). This effect that is not apparent in thesedata as a decrease in non-attendance following the adoption of e-registration is evident. Thisdoes not necessarily mean that an increase in recorded absence did not occur, and abouthalf of the schools believed this was the case, as noted above. If more accurate recording ofabsence did occur, this would mask the extent of the real decrease in absence following theintroduction of e-registration. However, the data available do not allow this to be calculated.3.1.2 Evolution of AchievementAttendance has been found to be correlated with academic achievement (e.g. Morris & Rutt,2004) so the trend in achievement was an important consideration for the evaluation. Table3 shows that schools in the project had average achievement levels that were considerablybelow the national average, as could be expected in schools with high levels of absenteeismand which will tend to serve more disadvantaged communities. Achievement at GCSEimproved substantially over the period from 1999-2005, with the bulk of that improvementtaking place during the period of e-registration implementation. While achievement at thenational level also increased over the period 1999-2004, the increase was greater in the e-registration schools: 11.3% v 9.4% (Table 4). Furthermore, the increase during the period ofe-registration implementation (2002-05) in the e-registration schools was greater thannationally: 7.8% v 5.7%. This does not, of course, mean that this can simply be attributed toe-registration alone, in the light of the many initiatives that have taken place in low achievingschools in particular. Regression to the mean and ceiling effects are also possible factors, aswith absence (see above). However, as we shall see below, there is a highly significantrelationship between attendance and achievement.Table 3 GCSE grades – % pupils achieving 5 grades A*-CPeriod E-registration schools National22

1998-99 30.1 47.91999-00 30.7 49.22000-01 31.7 50.02001-02 33.6 51.62002-03 35.6 52.92003-04 37.9 53.72004-05 41.4 57.3Table 4 Change in GCSE scores – % of pupils achieving 5 A*-CPeriod E-registration schools National1999-05 11.3 9.42002-05 7.8 5.71998-01 1.6 2.12004-05 3.5 3.62003-04 2.3 0.82002-03 2.0 1.32001-02 1.9 1.63.1.3 Achievement and Attendance in E-registration SchoolsThe relationship between achievement and attendance is well-established in educationalresearch (e.g. Morris & Rutt, 2004). The question here, therefore, is not so much whether arelationship would be found, but how strong that relationship would be.As can be seen in Table 5, correlations are strong, within this group of schools showing lowlevels of achievement and high levels of absenteeism, with correlations at least .5 in allyears. This is a level of correlation that is high by the standards of educational research, inparticular in light of the measurement error present in both variables. It is noteworthy that thecorrelation decreases substantially in the last two years of the project, which is the periodwhen e-registration would presumably have been fully implemented. A simple causalrelationship between e-registration and the decrease can, however, cannot be assumed forreasons mentioned in section 3.1.1. Correlations are stronger with authorised than withunauthorised absence. This is due to the greater variance in authorised absence levels.Table 5 Correlations between absenteeism (total % half days absent) and achievement (%achieving 5 A*-C grades at GCSE) in e-registration schools23

PeriodCorrelation coefficient1998-99 -.601999-00 -.612000-01 -.582001-02 -.602002-03 -.552003-04 -.522004-05 -.50All correlations significant at the .001 level3.1.4. Relationship of absence to pupil backgroundAnother established relationship is that between absence and pupil background (e.g. Morris& Rutt, 2004). Again, the question here is not so much whether this relationship exists in thisgroup, but how strong the relationship is. The analyses reported here are based on data atschool rather than pupil level and so do not allow any judgements about the relationshipbetween a pupil’s free school meal eligibility (FSME) status and attendance.Table 6: Correlations between pupil background variables and absencePeriod% Free School MealEligibility% pupils withstatements of specialeducational needs% pupils with specialeducational needswithout a statement1998-99 .40*** .15*** .31***1999-00 .40*** .21*** .34***2000-01 .40*** .16*** .30***2001-02 .38*** .13*** .24***2002-03 .34*** .21*** .26***2003-04 .32*** .11** .30***2004-05 .30*** .08* .13**** significant at .05 level ** significant at .01 level *** significant at .001 levelFrom Table 6 it is clear that there is a moderate significant relationship between absenceand free school meal eligibility. This again is slightly stronger than that found in most studies,though as with the achievement–absence relationship the correlation has decreased in the24

final years of the project, suggesting that the decrease in non-attendance may be linked to a(limited) decoupling of the relationship between social background and non-attendance.The relationship between percentage of pupils with special educational needs and absenceis significant, and modest in size. The relationship is stronger with the number of nonstatementedthan with the number of statemented pupils. There is no pattern of change overtime, though there is a strong decrease in the strength of the relationship in 04-05.While relationships between absence and percentage pupils from different ethnic groupswere found in individual years, the relationships varied from year to year (in one year, forexample, percentage Asian pupils being positively, in another year negatively, related toabsence). This suggests that there is no clear consistent relationship between ethnicity andabsence levels at the school level.3.2 The views of schools3.2.1 Information about absenceIn the rest of this section we present the findings from the questionnaires completed in 2004and 2005 and the case studies. These provide information about the functioning of the e-registration systems as experienced by schools in the study and also provide insights intopossible reasons for the benefits and limitations of e-registration.Figure 1 E-registration provides useful Information on unauthorised absence 2004-2005 (%)25

605040302010200420050Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly AgreeDKIn each year, questionnaire respondents expressed overwhelmingly positive views of their e-registration systems’ capacity to provide useful information about unauthorised andauthorised absence (Figures 1 and 2). The percentage responding ‘don’t know’ (DK)reduced over the period to just 2.1%. 92.1% were positive for unauthorised absence in 2005and 93.1% for authorised. Furthermore, 87.4% were positive about lesson monitoringproviding useful information on absence in 2005 (this was not asked in 2004).Figure 2 E-registration provides useful Information on authorised absence 2004-2005 (%)605040302010200420050Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly AgreeDK3.2.2 Reducing absences26

In 2004 opinions were divided as to whether e-registration had led to a reduction inunauthorised absence (Figure 3) while the majority disagreed with this being the case forauthorised absence (Figure 4). Opinions became more positive over the project forunauthorised absence, increasing from 41.2% in 2004 to 50.3% in 2005, although only 4.3%and 4.5% felt this strongly in 2004 and 2005 respectively. For authorised absence theincrease was less (28.8% to 35.2%).Figure 3 Unauthorised Absence has decreased as a result of using the system 2004 -2005(%)5040302010200420050Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly AgreeDKFigure 4: Authorised Absence has decreased as a result of using the system 2004-2005 (%)50454035302520151050Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly AgreeDK20042005This cautious optimism with regard to reducing authorised and unauthorised absence that isevident through the analysis of the quantitative data also emerged during the case studies.27

In many schools, senior management team (SMT) members viewed electronic registrationsystems as being potentially capable of reducing unauthorised absences and internaltruancy. There was agreement that electronic registration is “one part of a strategy” toimprove attendance, with other systems in place, e.g., EWOs, behaviour policies, alsocontributing directly and indirectly to improvements in attendance. The majority of the staffviewed electronic registration as a device that enables schools to gather attendanceinformation more easily and quickly, although it was argued that “the system alone will notreduce absenteeism”.Over the last six months of this project, some interviewees reported they had seen areduction in the number of authorised and unauthorised absences. The following commentis typical of those received from SMT representatives in these schools: “definitely there isan increase in attendance and a reduction in unauthorised absences”. Others indicatedthat attendance figures had improved over the current year, but were unsure about the linkwith the introduction of electronic registration; for example, the attendance figures referredto different cohorts of students. Almost all case study schools had recently prioritisedattendance, entailing other initiatives that were expected to have a positive effect onattendance and so make the identification of the specific impact of e-registration difficult, ifnot impossible, to discern. Consequently, while detecting an increase in attendance, manySMT were unsure to what this should be attributed: whether, for example to theintroduction of an electronic registration system or other factors, for example the arrival ofa full-time EWO. Interestingly, schools also stated that having an accurate system in placefor monitoring absences brought into acute relief the magnitude of their problem withabsenteeism.Initially, administrators in the case study schools also felt that the number of unauthorisedabsences would decrease because staff would have, through the system, an “increasingawareness about absences (e.g., lesson missed, duration of absence)”. They also believedthat e-registration would allow staff to provide accurate information to the EWO and notifyparents more quickly: “we can already find out if pupils are truanting from certain lessons”.Furthermore in the early stages they hoped that this would be “so much easier and moreaccurate with the Lesson Monitor in place'”. Overall, staff’s expectations were that throughthe implementation of electronic registration, they would be able to:• Identify post-registration truancy, with the potential to identify trends and patterns ofabsence; and• Make parents aware of their children's attendance by 'backing up' other systems already28

in place, e.g., sending attendance certificates with the reports to parents, and byproviding attendance figures at the end of the year.During the second phase of the evaluation, interviewees tended to confirm that theseexpected outcomes had occurred. At tutor level, there was some confidence that theintroduction of e-registration was having an impact upon attendance, e.g.: “I think there hasdefinitely been an impact on both authorised and unauthorised absences” (Year 10 Tutor);and “I think it has improved attendance throughout the school” (Second Year 10 Tutor).A Year 7 Tutor observed: “The whole school attendance has improved since we've beenusing it”. This interviewee was unsure what to what extent this improvement could beattributed to e-registration or “Just a case of us being a bit more tight about it”. Neverthelessshe was sure of a direct impact from e-registration upon individual children. “One particularlydifficult case has been helped by weekly % attendance figures, gives her positive feedbackas her attendance has increased”. (Year 7 Tutor). Similarly, a Year 11 tutor at anotherschool commented: “There are several individuals whose attendance has significantlyimproved because we have this system”.Interviewees were particularly positive about monitoring each lesson, as opposed to justmorning and afternoon. One EWO at a school that was monitoring attendance at eachlesson was confident that the system had made a significant impact upon attendance overthe previous year, stating that “Pupils can’t say ‘I was in my lessons’ when they weren’t”. Inanother school starting with a low (below 90%) attendance just a few years ago, attendancehad increased steadily to 92% last year, the highest for 3-4 years. The deputy head felt thiswas attributable, at least in part to introduction of the system, in conjunction with the fact thatthe school was giving attendance a high profile evidenced in the end of year certificate andprizes for 100% attendance at tutor group and individual level.In a similar vein, at another school where every member of staff was monitoring on a lessonby lesson basis, a SMT interviewee noted that “figures have improved upon last year forattendance in general”. While at this stage it was difficult to prove a direct impact from theintroduction of lesson monitoring, this member of staff was confident that the trend towardsimprovement would be maintained during the coming year, attributing this both to the impactof e-registration and the effectiveness of a key member of staff: “We have an attendanceclerk in post and have worked out an action plan for her to focus on. By next year there willbe an impact”.29

The SMT representative at a third school also commented that: “We are now doing lessonmonitoring, and this has made a positive impact”, indicating that at the end of the previousyear 13% absences had been recorded, decreasing to 10.3% at the end of the previousterm, bringing the school’s current attendance figure up to approximately 90%.Hence, there were many positive opinions about the usefulness of e-registration for a rangeof pupils. They appreciated that through e-registration they were more able to track patternsof absence on particular days (or in some cases from particular lessons), enabling them toassess the extent to which these patterns are symptoms of difficulties with a certain subject,or problems with other aspects of school and home life. They also agreed that, for somestudents, there are pastoral benefits in raising their awareness about being monitoredclosely and increasing their sense of responsibility. Some staff said that with the introductionof the e-registration students tend to actively seek information about their attendance, andalso, teachers and students are keen to talk about attendance openly. However, teachersand other staff were not optimistic that electronic registration would alter the behaviour of thehardcore of pupils who are repeatedly absent from school.3.2.3 Information on Truancy3.2.3.1 Post-registration truancyStrong positive views were expressed by schools in 2005 about the use of e-registration toprovide useful information about post-registration truancy (Figure 5) (this question was notasked in 2004). In 2005, 45% agreed and 36% strongly agreed on the usefulness of postregistrationinformation.Figure 5: E-registration provides useful Information on lesson-by-lesson 2005 (%)30

504030201020050Strongly AgreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly AgreeDKE-registration was seen as a positive influence on reducing post-registration truancy byabout half of respondents to the surveys while about a quarter disagreed (Figure 6). Therewas a slight shift to more positive responses in 2005.Figure 6: Post-registration Truancy has decreased as a result of using the system 2004-2005 (%)5040302010200420050Strongly AgreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly AgreeDKIn those schools where lesson-by-lesson monitoring takes place, interviewees reported thatthe system provided an underpinning structure for what staff already knew intuitivelyregarding the identity of students who do not attend all lessons. Schools aim for 100%accuracy in registration data, and lesson-by-lesson monitoring was seen as a valuable31

esource in investigating internal truancy as well as overall attendance. There were mixedviews offered about whether e-registration had reduced internal truancy. A year 7 tutorcommented: “Definitely an impact. I can check as head of year, the report pulls up if alesson is missed.” Very positively, too a senior member of staff commented: “Yes, therehas been a huge effect here. The kids are very much aware that we register each lesson”.The SMT representative at another school agreed, suggesting that lesson monitoring washaving a deterrent effect upon pupils so that internal truancy was at an insignificant level:“Yes, lesson registration does that [impacts upon internal truancy]. But I don't believe thereis much internal truancy in school. Pupils know some of the staff check and therefore thereis a bigger risk of being caught”.A deputy head perceived “a definite impact”, because teachers were able to tell from theirdisplay when marking the register when a student had been in one lesson then missed thenext. Although some staff reported “no impact upon truancy”, they agreed that the systemhad enabled the school to look at individual students' trends a lot better. At one school,close monitoring was combined for maximum effectiveness by a rearrangement ofregistration so that students received their registration mark only when in their first class:“This will impact upon those who would have registered at reception and simply bunked offhome”.3.2.3.2 Increasing punctualityMany teachers were cautiously optimistic that the system was having an impact on reducinglateness. A year 7 tutor expressed this as follows: “There are a couple of pupils, who werehabitually late, with whom it worked well to say ‘you are now at the top of the list of thosewho are late’”. Some observed that the introduction of an electronic system was alreadyhaving a positive influence on pupils, engaging their interest and making them aware ofbeing monitored, Several teachers felt that this interest and awareness with regard toattendance was translating into changes in behaviour and the climate of the school. Forexample, one teacher said that children carrying their swipe card with them were remindedconstantly through the day of accountability and a sense of responsibility. Anotherinterviewee described a positive impact on pupils’ punctuality and a competitive spirit forimprovement as follows: "…pupils in my form know that I'm on to them all the time, so theytry and make sure they are on time and not late. And then they start enquiring: 'where am Ion the list?' You know. 'You haven't quite made it yet, but you're close.'“32

Other teachers also reported that being able to record exactly the time of children’s arrival atschool, had enabled them to challenge pupils legitimately, and this was perceived to haveimproved punctuality. An administrator stated that the system had already a “positive impacton punctuality, with parents getting their children here on time”.A year 11 tutor explained his confidence that e-registration was impacting upon lateness:“Because I've actually got it there and it's immediate, a member of staff in my departmentpicks up people who are late into school. The information is put into the computerimmediately. By half past nine I know how many more have turned into school. By breaktime I can check how many times that pupil has been late, and by lunchtime I can have thedetention paperwork ready for them. That's been quite a shock to them!”Overall interviewees were of the view that while e-registration was of great value inidentifying the late arrival of individual pupils, follow-up measures were needed to addressor contain the problem, for example sending out letters promptly to parents. One schoolsuggested that parents, irritated by frequent complaints from the school, would take mattersin hand with their children. For another school, use of a loud hailer had proved invaluable in:“bringing the children in quickly from the playground….It's possible to clear the corridors of1500 children in 5 minutes at break times and lunch time’.3.3 SummaryThe results from analysing the 2004 / 2005 questionnaires show that, overall, staff havepositive views with regard to e-registration being a useful tool to provide information aboutunauthorised and authorised absence and internal truancy. However, mixed views areoffered with regard to the actual impact of e-registration on reducing absence, with morepositive views about e-registration’s capacity to reduce post-registration truancy beingoffered. These results are consistent with the accounts given by staff in the case studies,suggesting that although there is an agreement that e-registration is a good tool forgathering information, not enough evidence had yet been accumulated to show that e-registration contributes to the reduction of absence. At present, e-registration is seen as aneffective data gathering and managing system with 85% of respondents agreeing that theuse of e- registration has helped schools to manage absence more effectively and efficiently.These views about ‘managing’ and ‘gathering’ information have emerged consistently atdifferent stages in this project, with staff noting that it is still early days to measure impact in33

terms of actual reduction of absence, and emphasising the importance of placing e-registration within the context of other initiatives to maximise its effectiveness.34

4. Efficiency, Effectiveness and Usefulness of E-registrationIn Section 3 we primarily discussed the evidence for the impact of e-registration systems onunauthorised and authorised absence. In this section we consider the broader efficiency,effectiveness and usefulness of the e-registration systems used in the schools. We addressthese issues at two levels: individual pupils and the school.4.1 Individual LevelAt an individual level, the effectiveness of e-registration is explored in terms of the staff'sviews with regard to the fitness of purpose of using e-registration to tackle absence, and itsimpact on the quality of relationships between parents, pupils and teachers; behaviour andacademic achievement; and parental expectations and involvement.4.1.1 Academic achievementInitially, when SMT and tutors were asked about the impact of e-registration on attainment,they talked about the potential rather than impact per se. By the end of the study some staffperceived e-registration to be having an indirect impact on aspects of attendance andbehaviour through the facility to track absent pupils more quickly, and by combining e-registration information with other measures / systems in schools. When asked about thelink between absence and learning, staff also pointed out that in taking time off “children fallbehind in their learning, they frequently tend to take yet more time off because when theycome back into school they find they are not coping”. It was acknowledged that poorattendance not only had a knock-on effect on academic progress but also on social skillsdevelopment, with friendship groups dispersing during a student’s prolonged absence fromschool. In this regard, electronic registration was said to “influence behavioural and socialelements too“.In almost half of the schools visited, in both phases of the case study visits, SMT membersstated that linking information about attendance with attainment data had not taken place,usually because there were different systems, from different companies, for recording andanalysing each set of data and no integration for data processing was in place. Even duringthe last round of visits, some SMTs stated that it was still early to comment on whether theimplementation of electronic registration would support the development of literacy and35

numeracy skills in pupils. Although staff acknowledged that being at school maximisesopportunities for learning, it was recognised that attendance alone was insufficient to supportlearning. Even though scepticism was also expressed by tutors they perceived a linkbetween attendance and increased academic achievement. They pointed out that analysisof data tend to ignore the fact that different cohorts of pupils are involved each year, with“achievement depending rather upon whether or not each intake of pupils are bright“.On a positive side, in some schools the importance of collecting accurate attendance datafor linking it to attainment was stressed. For example, one head teacher in particular talkedabout having plotted a graph linking attendance with GCSE achievement over the last twoyears. In another school, staff have seen improvement in academic attainment in Y11,establishing a strong correlation between good attendance (90% and above) and good examperformance, with very few students achieving well with attendance between 80% and 90%and with almost no students achieving well with attendance 80% and below. In schools thatchanged their system, the exercise of linking attendance and achievement data wasexpected to be easier with the new system in place. Furthermore, some SMT staff and tutorsacknowledged that attendance information was used to inform counselling, and that mightsupport pupils in dealing effectively with problems associated with absenteeism such asfamily difficulties, unemployment and social isolation.4.1.2 BehaviourWith regard to improving behaviour, many SMT felt it was still too early to draw linksbetween attendance and behaviour. Those who did were less optimistic that using e-registration will have a direct impact on reducing inappropriate behaviour, a view supportedby the results obtained from the surveys with around half of the respondents disagreeing andonly about one in ten agreeing on this (Figure 7). This view has been consistent over thecourse of this project with just a slight shift away from strong disagreement. Although adirect link between using e-registration and supporting appropriate behaviour had not yetbeen seen, many staff said that it was ‘common sense’ to think that if children are at schoolthey are less likely to engage in out-of-the-school inappropriate behaviour. However, it wasalso stressed that the link between attendance and pro-social behaviour is not simple asthere are children who engage in anti-social behaviour during out-of-school hours.36

Figure 7: Behaviour has improved as a result of using the system605040302010200420050Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly AgreeDKFor example, both EWOs and teachers felt that students spending more time in school haveless opportunity for misbehaviour off school premises, as well as more exposure to theschool’s behaviour policies and pastoral support. It was felt that these factors in combinationmay, in time, have a positive effect on behaviour both in and out of school. The possibilitythat lesson-by-lesson monitoring might benefit behaviour, partly through reducing postregistrationtruancy, and partly due to being aware of the location of students throughout theday was also proposed. A dual impact on behaviour and attendance was expected, andalready experienced at some schools from the recent installation of CCTV cameras. Also,truancy sweeps were accredited at several schools with reducing anti-social behaviour out ofschool. Several schools commented on the positive influence on behaviour, andattendance, of an Attendance Officer and/or EWO who is personally known to pupils andtheir families. Again, therefore, interviewees indicated that reducing inappropriate behaviourrequired a number of related measures.4.1.3. Teacher, parent and peer relationshipsThe majority of teachers interviewed described the relationships between pupils andteachers as being good overall. Several teachers stated that they need to work hard todevelop good relationships with students through putting a lot of effort into preparinglessons; having year group assemblies; encouraging good social bonding among students;tutoring the same group from Y7 to Y10 to maintain consistency; employing staff with adiverse ethnic profile in ethnically mixed neighbourhoods/schools; and, finally, taking a37

solution- focused approach to social/behavioural problems. Furthermore, the implementationof an assertive discipline policy to make pupils aware of their rights and responsibilities wasreported to support good teacher-pupil interactions. In this context, teachers saw e-registration as another strategy that may enable them to support pupils’ pastoraldevelopment through the accumulation of accurate data and the tracking of absencepatterns.With regard to school-home correspondence, some administrators felt that the electronicregistration system had already made a positive difference through the first-day absencecalls. However, others reported that these first day calls were already taking place with theprevious system, e.g., Capita SIMS OMR, stressing that the new system had added nothingnew in this respect. In many schools, interviewees emphasized the importance of accurateinformation when contacting parents in that there had been cases where inaccurateinformation was provided to parents. On a positive side, with the use of e-registration, aregistration certificate was sent out to parents with written reports for year groups and thisprocess was characterised as “much easier. Before, we had to sit in front of pile of registersand cross refer with the late book, now can simply pull off a report”. One administrator statedthat the system had had a “positive impact on punctuality, with parents getting their childrenhere on time”. Others simply appreciated that the system allowed them to provide detailedinformation to parents about their child's absences, typified by the following comment: “if aparent phones, we can say 'they are in Maths but they skipped their English lesson' withaccuracy and efficiency”.4.1.4 The human factor: individual staff readiness and engagementIt was widely acknowledged by staff and e-registration suppliers that what makes technologywork is the human factor. The extent to which staff readiness and engagement withe-registration affect the effectiveness of e-registration emerged during our interviews.Problems with using the system were reported, partly attributed to system malfunction andpartly to ‘personnel’ factors. In some schools, problems were said to be exacerbated by thereluctance of staff to engage with e-registration, and a wider school culture of poor cooperationand communication, due to a variety of reasons such as schools merging withother schools, schools being on ‘special measures’.It is noteworthy that reluctance to engage with e-registration has been a factor underlyingerrors and omissions in data input at a number of schools, while one SMT respondentdescribed progression from resistance through competence to forgetfulness as follows:38

“staff‘s initial apprehension of e-registration has turned into being careless”. In manyschools, SMTs and administration officers were taking steps to address this problem, forexample at one school the SMT and admin. interviewees said: “reminders are being sentout to teaching staff about the importance of registration, and an accuracy campaign is to bemounted, as a good proportion of the mistakes being made are put down to carelessness“.There were also concerns expressed with some staff not registering within the first 10minutes of a lesson, as required. Administration staff were said to find the process ofamending marks tedious and time consuming, to the extent that these tasks were sometimesomitted altogether.In some schools, rather disparate views were expressed about the effectiveness ofcommunication between teaching and administration staff, prior to sending letters home,despite the ‘chasing up’ by the latter. The perception among tutors was that there was a “biglack of three way communication between the home, the form tutor and the office”. Poorcommunication at a number of levels, lack of sanctions for late-comers, inconsistentlyapplied sanctions, at one school animosity between the attendance office and an EWO, arefactors which in isolation or combination appeared to be adding to the difficulties in differentschools. Evidence from many interviewees suggests that the system was not always beingused accurately, nor were all of its facilities being fully utilized.There was variability in staff perceptions and attitudes with regard to the usefulness,reliability and cost -effectiveness of the system. On a positive note, staff have become moreaware about attendance monitoring since the introduction of e-registration, and are morelikely now to make ‘a more reasoned judgement’ about the scale and nature of truancy andattendance problems in their school. Some interviewees reported that attendance issueswere high profile, with new rewards for good attendance and a rigorously enforced detentionsystem for those who arrived late for lessons or truanted, commenting positively on theeffects of good teamwork on attendance. Interviewees generally felt that e-registrationfacilitates data gathering, rather than having a direct impact upon absence/lateness, but theyfelt confident that it was working alongside other initiatives to tackle the problems faced bythe school.Although the majority of staff had accepted e-registration as a responsibility and appreciatedthat the collection and analysis of data are now much easier, they felt that it took them longerto monitor attendance. Some tutors also expressed concerns about the negative impact thate-registration had on the quality of teaching and learning, stating that teaching is disruptedfor the purpose of attendance monitoring, especially marking those arriving late. In schools39

where e-registration was not viewed positively, it was said to be mainly due to staff nothaving “ownership” with regard to being involved in the decision making and implementatione-registration was rather seen as something that had been imposed on them in a ‘top downapproach’, "pushed centrally to fill the need to collect information, producing reports andstatistical figures is easier and this is the only benefit of it”.Also, staff perceiving limited effectiveness of the e-registration, were said to experiencedifficulties operating the system themselves. In some schools technical problems with thesystem and limited training correlated with low staff morale and willingness to use thesystem. With regard to training, despite SMTs’ assertions that the majority of e-registrationsystems are fairly easy to operate, several tutors conceded that the training they had so farreceived was not sufficient to carry them forward as their usage of the system widens anddeepens. In some schools, initial training involved only SMT staff, who were then tocascade information. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that some tutors, especially thosewith fairly low levels of IT competence, should find themselves insufficiently well prepared toapproach e-registration, and especially its wider applications, with confidence.Accuracy of data was a serious concern in that discrepancies take a long time to resolve.Specifically, a large number of EWOs highlighted a significant problem with teachers makingmistakes and omissions in entering data, which comes to light when comparing the lessonby-lessonreport and the attendance certificate. They also pointed out that they needed to besure of the accuracy of facts, for their professional credibility is at stake when making homevisits to parents and, crucially, when attendance data are used as evidence in courtproceedings. Discrepancies in attendance data have to be followed up by administrationstaff, increasing their work load.Occasional problems with inaccurate data input were compounded by the failure of someteachers to report to administration staff the transfer of a pupil from one teaching group toanother, to enter the information into the system. Some staff perceived the main impact fromrunning the swipe card system to be “ease of access to accurate data on attendance”. Thereliability of the data was, however, occasionally called into question by the failure of pupilsto swipe their cards, and uncertainties with the status of un-revised absence sheets. Fortheir part, many tutors using a range of systems indicated that they kept their own records byhand to check off absences as notes were received, having experienced many incidents ofparents complaining of receiving a letter from the school asking about absence, despitehaving already notified the school.40

Overall, positive views were given by the suppliers with regard to school readiness, statingthat "schools are now more ready, willing and able to use technology than they have been inthe past". Initially, it was said that some schools had difficulties with the infrastructure andnetworking, whereas, now, the issues have shifted to "people in schools and how willing andconfident they are to use the system". Almost all suppliers said that "there was a degree ofresistance especially in schools that had not put any other teacher-based ICT systems inplace", stressing that it takes time to change schools' culture to ensure that "people willmake the technology work".At present, e-registration suppliers and some SMTs, feel that the concerns in schools mainlyinvolve lack of confidence and willingness on the part of school staff to embrace technology.This may be explained by a constellation of factors ranging from the school ethos, toinfrastructure (e.g., lack of PCs in the classroom) and networking, as well as lack ofconsultation prior to procurement and installation of the system. Some administration officersalso said that it would have been helpful to prepare the ground in terms of raising confidenceabout technology among staff, mainly focusing on ways that the system integrates manyfunctions to support teaching and learning.4.2 School/Organisational LevelIn this section we consider the overall operation of the system, including the trainingreceived by staff, system reliability the degree to which e-registration leads to a reduction inbureaucracy, and value for money. In addition, we consider the impact of e-registration atpolicy level, including its ranking compared with other initiatives to tackle absence,4.2.1 TrainingOnly the 2004 survey asked for schools’ views on the quality of training. As indicated inFigure 8, the majority (70.7%) reported this was good or very good.Figure 8 Schools’ views on the quality of training in systems operation (2005 only) (%)41

6050403020100Very PoorPoorGoodVery GoodNone ReceivedDon't know2005The overall consensus among SMT interviewees was that training in e-registration had beenlimited in quantity. In many schools, cascade training had been undertaken, but with limitedtraining given, even to those at the top of the cascade model, typically restricted to one or amaximum of two days. In some cases of cascade training, it was one or possibly two seniormembers of staff and administrators who were trained first. Several administratorsdescribed the next stage of training staff, and for one this had consisted of “creat[ing] notesstep by step for teachers, and train[ing] another couple of staff”. INSET days had often beenused for the delivery of training.Interviewees’ views regarding the providers' demonstrations and training were rather mixed,both in terms of quality and time given. For example, interviewees indicated that someproviders gave two days of training in some schools and one day in others, though thereasons for this discrepancy were unclear. Also, some SMT members expressed concernsabout the preparation behind training for some systems, especially those bought on license,with the LA delivering the training. Approaches to training also varied; in some casesmembers of staff were given opportunities for trying the system out, whereas in other cases,training consisted mainly of delivering a set of notes for reference when actually using thesystem. In another school, an SMT interviewee produced a booklet on how the systemworked and had done “bits of training on training days and at staff meetings” demonstratingthe system. There was a (SIMS) manual, but “it's not the sort of thing you would give toevery member of staff”. As a result, some SMTs had tailored one that was “sufficiently userfriendlyand specifically for our school”.Almost all administrators interviewed said that the training was adequate although some feltthat they could use more training delivered by the suppliers of the system, as opposed toreading the manual. Some said that they had general training, not necessarily looking at42

specific functions such as Lesson Monitor. Also, others stated that they had training forDOS, but not for Windows. They also stated that although in-house training for teacherswas appropriate, administration staff were likely to benefit from training taking place in outof-schoolcentres, to minimise interruption.While some teachers had been satisfied with the training provided, others felt it had beeninsufficient. (Note also that 21.3% of survey respondents in 2004 reported the training pooror very poor). For example, one teacher who received INSET training reported that teacherscould “work through the system [yourself] – it’s dead straightforward”. By contrast, anotherteacher who had received one hour’s INSET training on the system felt that there was anunfounded assumption of computer literacy. Training had consisted of handing out leaflets,rather than “hands-on” content. For lesson-by-lesson monitoring, although not yet in place insome schools, it was felt that additional training would be needed for staff to engageefficiently with a system which would effectively change the school’s approach toregistration.Differences in the depth of training offered to teaching and administration staff in eachschool reflected SMTs’ perceptions of the complexity of the system used, as well asmanagement expectations regarding teachers’ level of engagement with attendance issues.Specifically, some staff were trained simply to register classes, while others were trained tobacktrack for patterns of absence. Also, variations in training reflected the availability ofschool staff with good ICT knowledge (e.g., dedicated IT technicians), able to offer a highlevel of support to teachers in the process of adjusting to a new system. The following SMTcomment is typical of many received: “the reality is that there is a range of computer literacyamong the staff – some, but not all staff are at a level of being able to develop competencewith using a system effectively from a short training session, or one which relies primarily onwritten material rather than experiential learning”. This view received support frominterviewees at tutor/teacher level, and at many schools, as expressed by one year 11 tutoras follows: “there are lots of things I know it can do but don't know how to do them”. In suchcases further training is clearly needed if the school is to reap the maximum benefit from theintroduction of electronic registration, and many SMT representatives acknowledged that thiswas the case.In addition to questioning the depth of the training provided, some staff also challenged itsfocus. Specifically, training focused on how to use the system with limited training providedwith regard to networking / infrastructure, upgrading and installation of the system. A largenumber of schools had been experiencing technical problems related to infrastructure,43

networking and alternative systems to use during upgrading, rather than using the systemper se.4.2.2 Set up of the SystemAlmost all schools reported having experienced some difficulties with the implementation oftheir e-registration system in the early stages. Specifically, even in schools where the e-registration system was fully operational, there had been a number of unforeseen difficultiesand 'ongoing glitches', including:• a major fire in the school building destroying a large number of computer pads;• losing attendance records while moving from one software to another;• lack of consistency in using the system (“some staff not using it”);• difficulties with the operation of a satellite link;• problems with integration of functions in schools that operate on a split site;• teething problems such as 'first-day absence phoning' (it was stated that the firstday-absentreport did not specify whether a child had been absent all day or p.m./am.only. This had to be checked before the first-day phone call was made, ifunnecessary phone calls to parents were to be avoided);• difficulties operating a system that was implemented by a previous head;• difficulties with updating the system;• changing from one electronic registration system to another within a relatively shortperiod of time;• Incompatibility between systems, resulting in time-consuming involvement for clericalstaff.The 2004 survey indicated that about three quarters of schools considered the installation ofthe e-registration system had been good or very good (Table 7), with only one in five judgingit poor.Table 7 Schools’ views on the installation of the e-registration system (2004 only) (%)44

Very Poor Poor Good Very None Don’t knowGood receivedInstallation of the e-registration system was 4.5 15.2 51.2 24.2 3.5 1.4Immediate after salesservice was6.8 23.7 42.3 16.1 7.9 3.2Many administrators stated that they were still having problems with the installation of theelectronic system several months later. For example, an administrator, talked about theserious infrastructure problems of an old, brick built school and the inability to use wirelessnetworking and install computer points in classrooms. Also, there were concerns with systemoverload, in terms of being able to cope with simultaneous log-on by 50 staff. Anotheradministrator spoke of incompatibility between the existing system and new software /operating systems, and the school’s consequent reluctance to “move forward to adopting[system] while we have ongoing problems with other modules”. This administrator statedthat the system is “not as easy as it was made out”. In another school, staff complained of“the readers frequently 'going down'”, as well as of the premature departure of technicians,before it could be established whether or not a fault had definitely been corrected. For staffin this school, the advantage of speeding up the process for the attendance officer wascounter balanced by the time consuming nature of downtime when faults occurred.A number of teachers also recalled problems in getting the system up and running. Theseincluded the wireless network proving a problem, difficulties and delays for the deputy headin getting the system on-line. Another teacher reported that his classroom was sometimes“in a black spot”, with other areas in school unable to get access to the system at all,although another interviewee reported that initial difficulties of this kind had now beenresolved.After sales service was rated positively overall but nearly 30% of schools were dissatisfied(Table 7).4.2.3 Operation of the System45

The surveys during phases 1 and 2 provide staff’s views of issues with regard to theoperation of the e-registration system, in terms of its technological aspects, i.e., reliability,adequacy in meeting schools’ needs and easy use, as well as an information system. Staffviews on e-registration’s reliability, adequacy and easy use have been positive since theinitial stages of the implementation of e-registration and have remained positive over thecourse of this project. Specifically, by 2005 about three quarters of schools agreed that thesystem was reliable (figure 9), and was adequate in meeting schools’ needs (Figure 10).Furthermore, in 2004 about four out of five schools reported it was easy to use, a percentagewhich grew to about nine out of ten in 2005 (Figure 11).Figure 9: % reporting that E-registration is reliable6050403020100Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly AgreeDK2004200546

Figure 10: % reporting that E-registration is adequate for the schools’ needs6050403020100Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly AgreeDK20042005Figure 11: % reporting that E-registration is easy to use6050403020100Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly AgreeDK2004200547

Figure 12: % reporting that the system provides useful information to give to parents6050403020100Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly AgreeDK20042005Staff views were also sought about the e-registration as an information system, i.e., capacityto compare attendance data with other data, provide information to parents, produce reportsquickly and record information accurately. With regard to the last two functions, positiveviews over time were offered. Around 50% of staff agreed and more than 30% stronglyagreed that e-registration was capable of providing information to parents, and these viewsbecame more positive over time (Figure 12). Similarly, the majority of schools consideredthe e-registration system to produce reports easily; about two thirds in 2004, increasing toalmost nine out of ten in 2005 (Figure 13). However, views on comparing attendance datawith other data, as well as accuracy of information were mixed.Figure 13: % reporting that the system allows useful reports to be produced easily6050403020100Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly AgreeDK2004200548

Figure 14: % reporting that the system provides easy comparison with other data403020100Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly AgreeDK20042005Approximately equal proportions of schools in each survey agreed and disagreed that theire-registration system allowed easy comparison with other data (Figure 14) with slightly moreof those offering an opinion believing that more accurate recording had led to higher levels ofrecorded absence (Figure 15) – but note also the high proportion of ‘don’t know’ responsesfor both Figures 14 and 15.Figure 15: % reporting that the more accurate recording allowed by the system has led tohigher levels of recorded absence4035302520151050Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly AgreeDK2004200549

Generally, there were positive views (over four out of five schools) in 2005 regarding e-registration as a good tool to manage absence information (Figure 16).Figure 16: E-registration has helped my school to manage absence more effectively (2005only) (%)706050403020100Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly AgreeDK20054.2.4 System shortcomings at the operation phaseAlthough almost three quarters of the respondents expressed positive views aboute-registration as being a reliable and easy to use system, and a good device to provideinformation to parents and produce reports, several issues were raised and discussed at acase study level, including shortcomings of the system and features that maximise orcompromise reliability.Many head teachers gave good ratings for reliability of the e-registration during its operation,although some pointed out that the system could only be as reliable as the people using it.One deputy head, for example, reported that the Attendance software was very reliable andstable, whereas Lesson Monitor was less reliable, “appalling when it first arrived”. Althoughthe situation with Lesson Monitor had improved, some respondents reported a few elementswere still not working properly, e.g. where, for example, a student was legitimately out ofschool during lesson 1, subsequently returning for lesson 2, which will be for them the firstlesson of the day. Also, it was reported that concerns regarding reliability tended to ariseduring software updates.50

While the system was “fine when it works”, frequency of downtime was reported to beunacceptably high. As an example, one teacher explained that colleagues in the schoolfound the system unreliable, and they had to back it up with paper registers. He also statedthat “If it’s working one day and not the next, people get fed up and say: ‘I'm not using this!’".Some teachers complained of problems with software and the school’s unreliable, old, slowcomputers which were unequal to the task of engaging with new technology.Overall, staff expressed concerns with regard to:• students losing / forgetting / destroying cards (for systems using card swipe such asRadun);• schools following their own guidelines and altering certain features / structure of thesystem (e.g., codes), without consulting with the company;• lack of upgrading planning in that the schools need to plan in advance to avoidconfusion during upgrading, and e-registration cannot be used while the upgradingtakes place;• secondary school students misplacing cards affecting disciplinary procedures; and• lack of clarity in schools about the differences between consultancy and support /training provided by the suppliers, stressing that this was an important issue thatshould have been clarified from the beginning of their negotiation with schools.4.2.5 ReliabilityAs shown in Figure 9 reliability was reported by the 2 nd phase to be satisfactory in threequarters of schools. In this section we consider some of the reliability problems but it mustbe stressed that these must be considered within the generally positive opinions fromschools. These problems included system overload when all staff logged on simultaneously;difficulties during upgrade; problems with hardware and networking /connections; andincompatibility with existing systems (software and hardware).Furthermore, it is evident that some problems experienced were a result of inadequacies ininitial training, or in the training of staff who subsequently joined the school, e.g. training inthe use of absence codes. Other difficulties related more to human lapses of communicationor failure to engage with the system, than to technology per se, for example: providers(helpdesk) not responding quickly or effectively when things go wrong; after-sales supportnot being sufficiently responsive; staff omitting to mark absences because of forgetfulness,51

or in some cases, resistance to using a new system, at least initially; inability to givepasswords to supply teachers, obliging them to complete paper registers.Features and uses of e-registration that were said to compromise reliability and hindereffectiveness include:• Overwriting previous codes (for example, a student is entered as 'late' byadministrative staff and then this being overwritten to ' absent' by tutor);• The use of complex codes for registering attendance;• Difficulties with coding / registering lateness, and switching from attendance to lessonmode without disrupting the lesson;• Making inaccurate entries resulting in contacting the parents unnecessarily;• Lack of compatibility between systems; and• A degree of unwillingness among teachers to use the lesson by lesson monitoring.Again, it must be noted that while these factors may affect the system’s reliability not all arespecific to the system (e.g. the range of absence codes could present reliability problemswith a paper system) while some are training issues.The system capacity and features that were found to maximise reliability and make e-registration effective include:! Good reliability in terms of providing consistent and accurate data;! Having a capacity for lesson by lesson monitoring;! Flexibility in changing entries easily without overwriting;! Easy and quick access to reduce time spent on registration;! Potential interface between e-registration and other systems;! The capacity to incorporate call direct/truancy call, although this depends oncollecting accurate data;! Consistency with the systems used by other schools in the same location to enableLAs to build expertise and capacity to provide support;! Facility to use laptop for both attendance registering and lesson planning anddelivering (although switching from the lesson to attendance mode was said by someto disrupt the lesson);! Producing reports with concrete information about absence to be used inconversations with parents;52

! Increasing the accuracy of recording information, and the speed of preparing reports! Flexibility to produce data that are used for many purposes namely, EWO, court (fasttracking system), social worker, parents, LA, tutors and counsellors, and with regardto looked after children;! Technical support from suppliers provided through remote access in addition to otherelements of after-sale support; and! The capacity to control incidents of antisocial behaviour within school throughimproved tracking with lesson-by-lesson monitoring.4.2.6 Reducing bureaucracySchools’ views with regard to the capacity of e-registration to release time for teaching andadministration staff have been stable with the majority disagreeing that e-registrationreleases teaching staff time (Figure 16). Similarly, about two thirds disagreed that e-registration releases admin time (figure 17). In each case only about one third considerede-registration released staff time.Figure 16: % reporting that the system releases teaching staff time for other work5040302010200420050Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly AgreeDK53

Figure 17: % reporting that the system releases admin staff time for other work6050403020100Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly AgreeDK20042005During interviews, there was lack of agreement in the views expressed among different staffmembers with regard to the impact of e-registration on reducing bureaucracy and releasingtime for teaching and administration staff to do other work. Many SMTs expressed the viewthat the system had “certainly reduced bureaucracy and saved time in the production ofreturns, and the LEA want the information termly and County want it half termly. It would bealmost impossible to do the data returns without this system”. Another improvement in termsof reduced bureaucracy was said to be the ease with which a registration certificate was sentout to parents with written reports for year groups.While, consistent with SMTs, some EWOs were optimistic that, in time, the electronic systemmight reduce bureaucracy and subsequent workloads, others felt that, at present, the workwas increasing rather than decreasing with electronic registration, mainly due to duplicationof data collection through the use of a paper register. While this was much in evidenceduring phase 1, there were schools, or members of staff within schools, who were still usinga paper register in parallel with the e-registration system during the second phase. Oneexplained this duplication as follows: “I like to be able to look across to check, and I can takea paper register home when I’m doing marking”.This lack of release of time may also reflect a redirection of work. A sixth-form tutor inparticular said that e-registration has replaced bureaucracy by “introducing a different way of54

doing it, but doesn't save any time. It can take more time. Because I have access toattendance records and figures, I can spend more time looking at this and tracking, andsometimes I do. But it is now easier to do this. I don't have to come to the office or ask otherteachers to get data any more.”A complaint common among teachers was the slowness in ‘getting into’ the system andretrieving the relevant data entry point. And where there were complaints, a time of 7-8minutes access time was not uncommon. One explained that the system demanded “toomany clicks” and two teachers felt that the system took too long to update in the event oflate arrival, requiring them to log out, then log back into the system. Another teacher wasalso disappointed to be unable to access an individual child’s details easily, noting that no“look-up” system was available. This question of the time taken to engage with the systemresonated with the view of a couple of SMT representatives who criticised the effectivenessof the system, claiming that “staff time needed is totally disproportionate to the amount ofmoney spent…it is very time consuming, and having an impact on teaching and staff‘swillingness to use the system”.Also, many administration officers have felt the pressures of an increased workload resultingfrom the implementation of e-registration, expressed by one as follows: “[it] meant that therewas more for them to follow up, more phone calls to parents and a frequent need to chaseup errors and omissions in data entry“.4.2.7 Promoting school ethos and multi-agency collaborationOriginally, the expectation was that e-registration would increase schools' professionalimage and support collaboration with other agencies. Based on the 2004 questionnaire data,about two thirds of staff agreed that the use of e-registration was likely to improvecollaboration with other agencies (Figure 18). These views become more positive over timeso that in 2005 about three quarters agreed, including over one in five who strongly agreed.55

Figure 18: % reporting that the system improves collaboration with other agencies6050403020100Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly AgreeDK20042005Schools were divided, however, regarding whether e-registration would lead to more positiveperceptions of the school by the local community with almost half not expressing an opinionin 2004 and a lack of strong opinions either way (Figure 19). However, there is a trend ofmore schools taking a positive view in 2005.Figure 19: % reporting that improved attendance has led to more positive perceptions of theschool by the local community50403020100Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly AgreeDKMost of the teachers in the case studies felt that the electronic system was already enablingspeedier contact with parents albeit providing inaccurate information at times, bringing links56

with the community. Several schools reported that first-day calling had been made easierthrough quicker access to attendance data although frequently changing mobile phonenumbers were sometimes making contact more problematic. Staff agreed that data aboutattendance the school wishes to provide to parents have become more easily and quicklyaccessible as a basis for information. In some schools, staff reported a much increasedfocus on attendance issues, expressed as follows by one SMT respondent: “there has beena much tighter regime since e-registration was introduced. Staff and, even more importantly,students are very aware that attendance is monitored”. In this context, attendance hadbecome “more high profile in their mind, and it is something I hear more staff talk about.Attendance percentage has become part of the culture.”A large number of schools, especially those operating under difficult social circumstances,were seeking to change “the whole ethos and climate with regard to attendance”. In someschools, a great deal of preparatory work was reported, with support from Education ActionZones, the Local Authority. This included research into various systems, implementing otherinitiatives to tackle absence, as well as having specialists from outside the school advisingon positive reinforcement and reward systems. Also, working parties had been set upinvolving the whole staff community seeking their input into policies and procedures. In someschools, new attendance policies had been developed at the time that lesson monitoring wasintroduced, e-registration being recognised as a key tool in the overall policy. There hadbeen much emphasis placed upon regular attenders “raising their esteem and status andposition in the school”, with rewards as an element of this focus in the context of a consistentemphasis upon good attendance.4.2.8 Comparison of e-registration and other initiatives4.2.8.1 Effectiveness of strategies to reduce absenceThere was a consensus among school staff that e-registration is one among many systemsto tackle absence and, thus, it needs to work in synergy with other systems in order to beeffective. In terms of relative effectiveness, the strategies and programmes in Table 8 wererated for their effectiveness in terms of reducing absence. The most favoured in 2005 (ratedeffective or highly effective) were: analysis of data to highlight levels and patterns of nonattendance(98%); contacting parents on the first day of absence (95%); incentive schemesand celebration of good attendance (90%); awareness raising of attendance andtimekeeping issues (83%); attendance officer (80%); school-based welfare officer (75%);learning mentor (75%); and targets to reduce unauthorised absence (70%);57

There was a consistency between schools having a system / policy or initiative implementedin the school and perceiving it as being effective in terms of reducing absenteeism. Table 8also presents the schools’ views of effectiveness during phase 1 of the research. (NB theseresults are very similar to those from the 2005 survey, but with the trend generally being amore positive rating in 2005). For full details see Appendix F.Table 8: Effectiveness of strategies/ programmes in reducing absence (% rating ‘effective orhighly effective)2004 2005Contacting parents at first day of absence 90.0 95.9Analysis for levels and patterns of absence 96.3 96.9Targets to reduce unauthorised absence 76.6 73.3Awareness raising of attendance/time-keeping 76.4 84.6Incentives / celebration of good attendance 89.1 90.8Breakfast clubs 45.2 46.2School-based EWO 69.3 77.3Learning Mentor 65.9 76.3Connexions Personal Adviser 58.2 52.1Home-school liaison officer 44.1 51.2Attendance officer 79.0 82.7BEST 20.8 29.4Police 22.9 34.7Governor 22.1 28.3These data stress the importance of investigating the effectiveness of e-registration in thecontext of other initiatives and school policies. A number of interviewees discussede-registration as “a natural progression” from the school’s policies to support attendance andbehaviour. Also, with the introduction of e-registration, certain attendance and /or behaviourpolicies were in the process of being revised, with new initiatives being implemented inschools. For example, the introduction of first-day absence calling in the last two years, andmore recently the use of a late bell had had an impact on attendance and had improvedpunctuality at lessons. In some schools, much work had been done over the previous yearto tackle children with challenging behaviour and put support systems for staff in place.58

SMT members in almost all schools saw electronic registration as an integral part of thewhole school attendance and behaviour policy, and spoke of the huge impact of the school’sdevelopment plan and attendance / behaviour policies on efforts to improve attendance. Onehead, for example, stated that “E-registration is the latest development that links withexisting ones'”. Many SMT interviewees, consistently with teachers, stressed the corelationshipof attendance and behaviour management policies. For example, a deputy headindicated that the long-standing attendance policy was amended yearly, raising the profile ofattendance and linking it to behaviour management and achievement. Also, another headexplained that, both at post-16 and pre-16 stages, regular feedback and attendance datawere given to tutors with the expectation that they would take the lead in looking at thebroader implications of attendance in terms of behaviour and achievement. An importantelement of this approach to attendance and behaviour was the recognition that teachingmethods and curriculum content can have a significant impact on these issues. In oneschool, 50% of INSET and other meetings had been devoted to behaviour management,setting targets and making sure that both attendance and behaviour policies were not just onpaper, but work “hand in hand“.The view that e-registration should be embedded in the context of other policies andinitiatives was also expressed in tutors’ accounts. Specifically, a year 7 tutor noted that “The[E-reg] system is the main focus [of the school’s behaviour / attendance policy] and isworking quite well so far”. For a year 10 tutor, the attendance policy was “part of e-registration”, alongside trying to make lessons interesting and giving attention to learningstyles. Also, a year 11 tutor perceived electronic registration as a part of the school’sattendance policy, relying on the system to “show up patterns” that will help the school tocalibrate existing policies.4.2.8.2 Ranking attendance policies/initiativesWhen respondents were asked to rank factors that were most likely to least likely to reduceabsenteeism, they favoured systems / policies that provide more holistic solutions in tacklingabsenteeism (Table 9). Across the two phases of the project (2004 and 2005), the majorityof respondents ranked creating a positive school climate and developing a relevantcurriculum for disaffected pupils as being the most likely ways of reducing absenteeism.Developing good relationships with parents and focusing on pupil achievement wereperceived as second to third most likely to reduce absence. Use of rewards for good59

attendance was ranked as fifth, having a clear discipline policy was sixth and usingelectronic registration were ranked seventh in its effectiveness to tackle absence.Table 9: Mean rankings of absence reduction factors in 2004 and 2005 (%)2004 2005Creating a positive school climate 2.5 2.4Developing a relevant curriculum for disaffected pupils 3.1 3.0Developing good relationships with parents 3.5 3.4Focussing on pupil achievement 4.3 4.2Using rewards for good attendance 4.6 4.5Having a clear discipline policy 5.6 5.6Using an e-registration system 5.8 5.7Punishing parents of consistent non-attenders 7.5 7.5Using punishments for poor attendance 7.8 7.74.2.8.3 Policy shiftsA shift in policy as well as staff roles and responsibilities, role definition, re-allocation ofadministrative duties and allocation of resources have occurred in many schools as a resultof implementing e-registration. Many teachers and EWS interviewees, as well as SMTrepresentatives, at phase 2, referred to the increasing role of administrators in handlingattendance issues. These shifts were occurring partly due to government legislation limitingthe requirement for teachers to engage with some aspects of attendance, and partly due tothe fact that the introduction and implementation of electronic registration systems hadredefined some attendance tasks as administrative, involving the appointment of new, ornewly designated, members of the administrative staff with specific responsibilities forattendance. A deputy head said that "it's not so much the e-reg system which has an impactupon attendance, as having the person who can operate the system that really helps". Inaddition, posts of responsibility had been created at many schools at SMT level withattendance as a central, or sole, focus.In another school, the Assistant Head indicated that the learning mentors were now playinga much more significant role in relation to truancy and lateness, carrying out more “truancysweeps” with the police. In addition, wardens now patrolled the school in the morningsharing two-way radios with the learning mentors so contact was made easily and without60

delay. It was anticipated that in the near future more attendance work would need to betaken over by administration, in compliance with changes at national level affecting teachers’working practice. In some schools, newly appointed pupil data managers use attendancedata to track attendance at specific (e.g.) four weekly intervals, with awards to pupils with fullattendance over that period. Finally, in some schools, emphasis was placed on theimportance of inter-professional collaboration: “good co-operation with EWS, regularmeetings with welfare officers, school nurses, and school-wide positive communicationbetween attendance staff, learning mentors and heads of year have supported attendancemonitoring. The role of the attendance officer is seen as crucial for the effectiveness of e-registration.”4.2.8.4 Strategic planningAn important issue that was raised consistently through the interviews with the suppliers wasthe lack of a framework for guidance to schools eligible for e-registration funding. It wasacknowledged that the majority of schools should have received instructions and advice toassist them in delineating their needs and deciding what type of system fitted theirrequirements in terms of features, training, management and maintenance. Specifically, onesupplier said that schools did not have a "clear directive with regard to their needs and the e-reg systems available". They also needed guidance to decide on how to spend the moneyand on which aspects of the e-registration, e.g., networking, upgrading, maintenance, theyshould focus. Some LAs were said to have played an advisory role in terms of organisingsuppliers to give presentations / demonstrations to schools in an attempt to “centralise” itwith schools. However, it was stated by some suppliers that "decisions in schools wereinfluenced not by the product and its potential but by the LEAs’ strategies and structures”. Afew suppliers, due to the nature of having a regional service in place, were in a position tohave discussions with schools and guide them through the process of planning and thinkingahead, even before the school placed an order for a system.Across suppliers, there was an agreement that schools lacked a framework of guidance interms of delineating their needs and requirements and, through consultation with theproviders, decide about the appropriate e-registration systems. Almost all providers agreedthat more time for consultation and preparatory work should have been given to schoolsbefore making a decision and placing the order for an electronic registration system.Specifically, extensive consultation before the procurement and installation of e-registrationcould have been helpful for schools to develop a clearer idea about feasibility, staff’sconfidence and technical knowledge in using e-registration, infrastructure, future project61

management and the potential of growth for e-registration to meet schools’ needs as theyemerge. Furthermore, it was suggested that setting realistic expectations about the potentialof using technology to tackle absence was important.4.2.9 Cost Effectiveness/ Value for MoneyValue for money was examined in terms of whether e-registration is practical andappropriate to free schools and staff from unnecessary administrative burdens, as well interms of optimising effectiveness. E-registration was seen by 67% of the respondents in2005 as offering a good value for money (this was not asked in 2004) but one in fivedisagreed. Furthermore, 65% in 2004 and 71% in 2005 were willing to recommend it toother schools (Figure 20).Figure 20: I would recommend e-registration to other schools (%)605040302010200420050Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly AgreeDKThrough the case studies, variability with regard to staff’s views about the cost effectivenessof e-registration has emerged. The issue of cost effectiveness were discussed with the SMTand, in the majority of schools, was answered in terms of the actual, financial cost ofpurchasing e-registration. During the interviews, the majority of SMTs offered a generalopinion that e-registration was a good value for money although their responses focusedonly on the financial resources they invested in the system itself. They tended to describe itas being “fair“ with “no hidden costs“. However, members of SMT were reluctant to ratevalue for money on a five point scale as requested so no reasonable estimate of the views ofthe case study schools as a whole was possible. It is also noteworthy that not infrequentlySMT respondents could give no detailed reply to the question of value for money. Several62

were unaware even of the financial resources invested in the system, as the decision hadbeen taken without their knowledge of any details by an incumbent, or previous headteacher. Others felt that proof of value for money would become apparent as the impact ofe-registration became more clear in the months/years ahead.One measure of perceived cost effectiveness/value for money might be the extent to whichschools felt that use of the system is saving time for staff, in comparison with the time spentbefore the implementation of e-registration. Even if the time saved were to benefit teachingstaff at the expense of administration staff this would be cost effective, bearing in mind thehigher rate of remuneration to the former group. While overall interviewees in all groups feltthat where time is saved it is teachers, rather than admin. staff who benefit, some repliesfocused exclusively upon the time taken solely for the act of registering presence orabsence, others included comments about contingent follow up tasks for a variety of postholders in school, to the extent that it is difficult to find a common baseline on which to makea before/after e-registration comparison.The following is an example of such a multi-focused response from a SMT interviewee:“Actual registration time is 20 minutes a day for teachers, but then you have the office staffwho register lates, and senior staff at the gate twice a day, taking the names of late pupils,then 38 hours a week of the attendance officer's time, 22 hours a week of attendancementor's time, you have me, I probably spend 4 hours a week on attendance, then the EWO,I couldn't quantify that. But it should allow teachers to spend more time in the rest of theirpastoral role, instead of doing lots of phoning or letter sending, more time to talk to thechildren”.Moreover, opinions sometimes differed even among teaching staff in the same school, forexample:“There is no saving in time. I have to spend so much time putting absences in, and it’s noquicker doing the register, either. …..Now I have to keep going back to amend the record. Ileave the pc on for the entire form period: 30 minutes per day, and today, for example, plusone hour to input just three pupils’ absence for the form tutor” (Year 10 tutor)contrasted with:63

“Pre-e-reg it would take 10 minutes to do the register, so 20 minutes a day, including entrymistakes. Now it takes half the time, most of the time is settling the class down. I can nowmake corrections easily and retrospectively, and can view on a weekly, monthly or yearlybasis” (Year 11 tutor, same school).Other interviewees made a distinction between time saving in form and in lesson time, e.g.:“As a form tutor it takes 15 minutes in form time twice a week, or an hour to check over eachweek, plus 5 minutes to put on merits each lesson. There is no saving in form time, but inlesson time it would have taken double the time to get the planner out”.Others referred to the positioning of equipment in school as a factor in time saving, e.g.:“Taking the register takes 20 seconds, but to log-in takes a long time – up to 10 minutes. Itdoes free up time. It’s a matter of organisation, switching on the machine in advance to loadin time, but sometimes I am not in my own classroom to log in, so this doesn’t work”.At a school where swipe cards are used, it could be argued that it is the pupils who spendtime registering, though they are supervised throughout by a teacher. Here teachers judgedthe positioning of swipe-in equipment on the wall as crucial to saving time. If positioned toonear to doorways queues quickly form, giving rise to hasty and inaccurate swiping.However, at this school the SMT representative was confident that: “it does save time, it’s farmore efficient”.The case for cost effectiveness is supported by comments to the effect that where teachers’time is saved, they are able to spend more time in pastoral, or other, work with the pupils.On a less positive note, some SMTs felt that it was still early to judge the cost effectivenessof the e-registration in that many schools “need to consolidate”. It was felt that more trainingwas needed to ensure that schools are making the best use of the data produced, and alsoto designate a member of staff to take ownership for acting on the issues highlighted by thee-registration system. It is suggested that the more the system was used the more costeffective it will become, and more efficient staff will become in its use. And this is expected tobring “real value for money”.64

5. Wider EffectivenessIn the previous section, the effectiveness of e-registration was investigated at an individuallevel (e.g., pupil attendance and behaviour, quality of home-school relationships), at anorganisational level (e.g., reducing bureaucracy, changing school culture, reliability of e-registration) and at policy level (e.g., interface between e-registration and other policies /initiatives, policy shifts, cost effectiveness). Judging the wider effectiveness of e-registrationrequires us to ask to what extent e-registration has met schools’ needs in terms of providingan ‘integrated solution’, i.e. monitoring absence as well as providing other functions, e.g.,assessment, lesson planning, behaviour monitoring; responding to / anticipating the schoolsneeds as they emerge; having extensive consultation with other schools, LAs and suppliersto enable schools delineate their needs and make an informed decision.Moreover, the wider effectiveness of e-registration in schools should be approached in termsof its capacity to tackle absence at three stages, namely prevention, recovery and reintegration(Ford, 1998). Prevention refers to using e-registration to identify / register pupilswho are at 'risk' of prolonged absenteeism in particular and potential disaffection bysystematically looking at patterns of absence over time and responding efficiently throughcounselling, parental and EWOs involvement. Recovery refers to 'bringing pupils back' toschool supported by the immediacy in the school’s response to absence, teacher awarenessand parental notification, as well as putting in place responsive systems of pastoral support.Finally, re-integration refers to the process of using e-registration, in the context of otherinitiatives, as a means of supporting pupils to re-integrate into the school by supporting theirpastoral needs, maximising pupils’ educational experiences and learning, as well as buildinggood relationships with schools, pupils and their families.5.1 Prevention, Recovery, Re-integrationMany schools defined effectiveness of e-registration and other attendance / behaviourinitiatives along the lines of prevention in terms of enabling them to become pro-active andresponsive to pupils at risk for absenteeism. Being proactive is likely to reverse the course ofabsence and encourage vulnerable children, through pastoral support and counselling, to reintegrateinto school.A large number of EWOs and tutors suggested that the hard core of poor attenders wereunlikely to respond to any initiatives targeting absenteeism. With this in mind, the school’sefforts are better focused on pupils just beginning to truant, or on pupils whose attendance65

ecord was only moderately poor. This view was highlighted by interviewees during bothPhases 1 and 2 of the project. In some schools, through the use of e-registration, teachersreported that the school had reclaimed some pupils who had been “on the edge of truancy”.Several tutors found the prompt availability of printouts through electronic registrationextremely useful in using them to demonstrate to pupils “in black and white” the scale of theirabsenteeism or lateness to lessons. This has been a useful resource, particularly forstudents keen to improve their attendance record.Some SMT representatives also noted a link between tackling absences at an early stageand reducing the number of exclusions. They said that staff’s early awareness of pupils'absences is likely to enable them to “reverse the trend successfully and bring the childrenback to regular attendance“. At the same time, pupils’ awareness of, or confidence in thegreater accuracy of attendance monitoring, in comparison with paper registration, was likelyto encourage acceptance that regular attendance at school is required, lessening thelikelihood of truancy. Overall staff at all levels were of the view that children on the brink oftruancy/unauthorised absence/repeated lateness are more amenable to intervention. At astage where disaffection is not entrenched a letter home or a detention may prove effective,and pupils may be unwilling to risk jeopardising their group’s prospects of a prize, where thisis awarded for good attendance, punctuality, etc.With regard to prevention, an e-registration system that differentiates among different groupswas seen as particularly helpful for tackling attendance issues with vulnerable children andchildren at risk at an early stage. The capacity for differentiation is likely to support staff tocarry out prevention work with vulnerable children. Although in the majority of the schoolsvisited e-registration does not differentiate for groups of vulnerable children per se, attemptswere being made to target those who have a high level of absence. In one school forexample, the system was reportedly being used extensively for user-defined groups,including traveller children, children with less than 50% attendance and children in years 9and 11 in connection with the 'Raising Boys' Achievement' project.There was a consensus in schools that problems relating to attendance and behaviour "aresymptomatic of a prevalent attitude which sets little value on education". It is believed thatsuch attitudes tend to "survive the many initiatives ongoing in school aimed at these issues".In this context, e-registration alone is not sufficient to address complex issues related topupil absenteeism and anti-social behaviour, and prevent escalating patterns of absence. Itseffectiveness has been achieved in schools where combination of e-registration and othersystems such as EWO involvement, attendance / behaviour policies, is evident.66

E-registration was seen as being successful when it operates in conjunction with othersystems / policies. It has been pointed out that any e–registration system is “just a tool” thatneeds “human back up” to maximise its impact. In one school for example, where thereseemed to be a remarkable improvement in raising attendance from 82% to 95%,e-registration was implemented in conjunction with other initiatives such as positive rewardsystems, which awarded prizes and certificates to those with over 90% attendance, an activeEWO, and an IT technician in situ. Moreover, many SMTs and EWOs also emphasized thepart played by schools’ approach to reviewing attendance, alongside the implementation ofe-registration. This approach was perceived to motivate pupils’ attendance by public displayof individual and form attendance percentages, and to engender competition to achievehighly in this area: “We are careful not just to take for granted the ones who come in all thetime, and get them ignored. They’re up there, and they can see themselves at the top, andthat gives them something!”E-registration, in the context of other systems and initiatives, is seen as being capable ofreversing the course of absenteeism in pupils. In schools where e-registration workssatisfactorily, teachers and EWOs have stressed the importance of having concreteevidence regarding absences, being able to look at patterns of absence, compare these withbehaviour, use this information in the meetings with parents, and “change the pastoralsystem” to respond to children’s specific needs. Although the majority of schools had not, asyet, interfaced e-registration data with counselling and guidance information, the expectationwas that such interface will stimulate an understanding of the wider social context withinwhich schools operate, and enable them to help vulnerable children, especially those whohave been absent for long periods, to re-integrate in the school. In many schools pupilsreturning after a lengthy absence, for whatever reason, were re-integrated through the workof a pupil referral unit. There was agreement that this can only be achieved by pairing e-registration with other initiatives and policies. Although the majority of staff appreciate theavailability of complete and easily visible data, they are aware that in order for re-integrationto happen, absence recordings must be accurate. Accurate data on absence have beenunderstandably seen as essential to the ability to use data in a constructive way, andachieve re-integration of pupils who have prolonged absences.During the interviews, staff made a number of suggestions as to how to achieve a widereffectiveness in the use of e-registration in terms of prevention, recovery and re-integrationof absent pupils into schools. Specifically, they made suggestions about e-registrationsystems operating within the context of diverse services, initiatives and policies, including:67

• provision of financial resources to improve and update computers, e.g.. re-positioningcomputers in specific classrooms, have a separate system for attendance monitoringto avoid lesson disruption;• continuity in the role of the Education Welfare Service (EWS) to maintain levels ofattendance and, in partnership with parents, support absent pupils re-integration intoschool;• detention policy in place to reduce lateness (prevention);• schools being proactive by identifying pupils at risk from the start of the term andmonitoring them closely (prevention);• members of staff patrolling the school, encouraging any pupil found to go back tolessons (recovery);• co-operation between the school and its feeder schools to develop strategies totackle issues such as family holidays taken during school time(prevention / recovery);• consensus on issues such as not to authorise absence to children who have lessthan 90% attendance (prevention);• school fund for emergency school uniforms to enable attendance in cases wherechildren do not have clean uniform to wear (prevention);• truancy call based on accurate attendance data to notify parents;• being proactive with parents who change their mobile phone numbers frequently toensure that personal touch is not lost;• stressing the importance of personal contact with parents. It was acknowledged thatautomated calls are best "suited to the needs of a business, rather than a school,where families and all their social problems are an issue";• extra support for schools from LA employees and an Attendance and BehaviourConsultant, as part of the LA’s extra data monitoring policy;• introduction of EMA for 6th form students, and the need to link attendance andpayments made to their families (prevention / recovery);• forthcoming introduction of new LA guidelines regarding fixed penalty notices for nonattenders,and an impending EWS initiative for EWOs to interview pupils with under85% attendance (recovery / re-integration mechanism);• the roles of attendance officer and IT technicians in schools for attendancemonitoring and technical support; and• a new disciplinary system, whereby a mentor would greet children as they came intoschool, also taking names of late comers for detention.68

As this list suggests, issues of wider effectiveness in terms of reducing absence should bedealt with at a whole-school level with multiple attendance monitoring and support systemsoperating simultaneously. During this project, data have consistently shown that themechanisms / systems that are viewed as being most likely to reduce absence includecreating a positive school climate, developing a curriculum that is appropriate for disaffectedpupils, shifting the focus on pupil achievement, enhancing pupils’ self-esteem and buildinggood relationships with parents.69

6. Conclusions and recommendationsIn this report we have presented evidence on the capital modernisation programme thatsupported schools with the highest levels of unauthorised absence to purchase e-registrationsystems. Grants were made on the basis of proposals from schools and were required tofund only approved systems. The number of systems available and chosen by schoolsincreased over the project, but the large majority of schools selected from a small number ofsystems, with two (Capita SIMS and Bromcom) having the largest shares of the market.Our conclusions address a number of aspects of e-registration as reported by schoolsthrough questionnaire surveys and over 400 interviews in a study carried out in two phasesover three years in order to achieve a developmental perspective.6.1 The effect of e-registration on absenceSchools were consistently positive over the period of the project in seeing e-registration asuseful in providing information on absence. By 2005 about half (50.3%) of the schoolsconsidered that unauthorised absence had decreased as a result of e-registration (comparedwith 41.2% in 2004) and about a third (35.2%) considered this to be the case for authorisedabsence (compared with 28.8% in 2004). This disparity is not unreasonable as it may beexpected that e-registration should impact mainly on unauthorised absence. Our analysis ofthe data for e-registration schools indicates that absence, particularly unauthorised absence,decreased between 1997-98 and 2004-2005, and more importantly, absence reduced overthe period of the project: 2002:2005. In both cases the improvement was greater than thenational trend.Interpretation of the effect of e-registration is complicated by the downward trend in nationalrates of absence and also the difficulty in isolating the influence of e-registration. The projectcommenced in April 2002, but many schools took at least a year, or more, before theirsystem was in full operation. This could produce an under-estimation of the effect of e-registration. A further factor concerns the relative impact of e-registration compared withother initiatives – our research indicated that while schools were positive about e-registrationthey placed it seventh out of nine factors that they considered effective in reducing absence.Furthermore, these schools were engaged in a number of different initiatives aimed atreducing absence in addition to e-registration.70

In summary, and taking into account these caveats, our judgment is that it is reasonable toconsider that e-registration has had an influence in these schools on the reduction of bothauthorised and unauthorised absence.Lesson monitoring was viewed positively with over half of schools considering it had led to adecrease in absence. By the end of the project, most schools had moved or were moving toinclude lesson monitoring.6.2 The system in operationThe setting up of e-registration systems was not unproblematic. Schools needed time tosubmit bids, receive approval, procure, install and test systems, and also to train staff. Thisis inevitable with any major system development. Most schools were satisfied withinstallation, training and after sales service in these early stages, but substantial minoritieswere not, e.g. about one in five schools considered the installation of the system was poor(4.5% very poor) and almost a third rated immediate after sales service poor (6.8% verypoor). Similarly although training was rated positively by about 70% of schools, one in fiverated it as poor. Hence, despite the overall positive ratings there are worrying findings.Schools’ difficulties with operating e-registration were varied. Some related to perceivedinadequacies of the system per se while others concerned the competence of staff, atraining issue. The former included both hardware and software problems. Some schoolsreported that additional facilities they had chosen to purchase were not in fact availablewhen the system was installed. Upgrades could be a time of disruption. But the centralimportance of the staff was also indicated. At the minimum, registration was a simple activitybut to benefit from the many options available (and these increased over the project)required schools to develop staff competence. This generally needed at least one memberof staff to develop skills in producing reports, integrating databases in order to explore trendsand relationships with other data, and to add generally to the intelligence available to SMTwhen determining policy and further actions. In this regard, the fact that schools were splitas to whether their system provided easy comparison of data is a concern. This does notnecessarily imply a deficiency in the e-registration system itself, however; in some cases itreflects a lack of training to enable staff to undertake data analysis requiring the interface ofdifferent systems. This concern about compatibility of data systems had influenced manyschools to use an e-registration system that linked easily with other data managementsystems produced by the same supplier.71

Schools’ views on operating e-registration generally became more positive over the project:e.g. by 2005 over 80% rated it easy to use, adequate for their needs and considered itallowed reports to be produced easily, while about 90% considered their system provideduseful information to parents. These are high ratings but it is necessary to note that 10% orso of schools rated these factors negatively. Systems reliability is fundamental and whileabout three quarters of schools were positive about this by 2005, over one in five weredissatisfied. The reasons for reduced reliability were many and varied. Some were specificto the system e.g. its use of laptops, radio transmission or swipe cards, each of which couldproduce its own problems. For example, laptops could break down and may leave a teacherwithout a replacement, especially when schools had limited IT staff. School sites presenteddiffering challenges to radio systems but also to wiring installation. Swipe cards could belost or stolen.It had been anticipated that e-registration would save staff time. While this was the case forthe recording of data, over half of schools by 2005 disagreed that e-registration had releasedteaching staff time and about two thirds disagreed that admin staff time had been releasedfor other work. Various reasons for this included the need to sort out problems resultingfrom the e-registration system including incompatible data systems. Some of theseproblems might be expected to lessen with greater familiarity and software development.Indeed positive schools reported favourably on time saved in analysis and report production.Other increased demands could be seen as positive as the greater availability of informationand means of contacting parents, for example, allowed more and speedier actions. Over80% of schools were positive about the increased collaboration with other agencies resultingfrom e-registration.6.3 The role of e-registration in schools’ attempts to reduce absenceAlthough there were difficulties with e-registration, it is reasonable to conclude that schoolsin general were positive about its contribution to their attempts to reduce absence. Abouttwo thirds considered it good value for money and would recommend their system to otherschools. However, schools were unable to provide accurate data to allow a value for moneyanalysis to check these impressions. As noted above the analysis of absence data givesgrounds for a cautious conclusion that this capital modernisation programme has led to areduction in authorised and unauthorised absence in these schools which previously had thehighest levels of absence. These are positive findings.72

It is also necessary to contextualise the benefits of e-registration within the wider range ofinitiatives that schools have undertaken. In this case it is also important to note that theproject schools were also characterised, in general, by high levels of social disadvantage.These schools rated e-registration only seventh of a list of nine possible absence reductionfactors, in both 2004 and 2005. Furthermore, in 2005 only 2.4% ranked it first. The mosthighly rated overall were: first, creating a positive school climate and second, developing arelevant curriculum which were rated first choice by about 46.0% and 25.1% of schoolsrespectively. Discussions with school staff reinforced these relative rankings. In short, e-registration was seen as another important tool to aid schools tackle absence but of moreimportance was getting schooling right for the pupils.6.4 Essential (Optimum) Features of E-registration: meeting the schools' needsTaking into consideration all the issues raised at an individual, organisational and policy levelby our interviewees, as well as the features / aspects of e-registration systems that weresaid to facilitate or hinder reliability and the overall effectiveness of attendance monitoring,the following characteristics are suggested for an e-registration system that is likely to meetschools' needs. Specifically, this is a system that:• is modular with the flexibility to add / change features to fit schools' requirements asthey emerge;• can also be used for access control and assistance call (safety features). As regardsaccess control, this is suitable for schools to control certain areas by allowing accessto those who have permission only during community events;• disseminates information immediately to many users (e.g., administration staff,parents) and draws patterns and make links between absence, behavioural stylesand achievement, for schools, parents and other community stakeholders;• enables parents to get a complete view of child's academic performance as well asinformation about attendance, behavioural styles, assessment and attainment.• encourages parental participation through the use of ICT that transcends theclassroom environment;• allows different professionals, e.g., EWOs, counsellors, to access information aboutattendance;• monitors or 'detects' vandalism, in addition to attendance. Specifically, the systemregisters when students leave the class and when the student comes back. If an anti-73

social event takes place in between registrations then schools are in a better positionto tell who might have been involved in it.• is a "total solution system" that incorporates more than registering attendance, byproviding other features such as a printer on the Web;• is flexible and can be rented by those schools that cannot afford to buy it; and• takes into consideration other educational initiatives targeting absence in schools.For example, it was said that some systems account for the "workplace reform" byadapting the systems accordingly to minimise the time teachers spend using it.Based on this analysis, the essential features of an effective and efficient e-registrationsystem include:• Capacity for registration in every lesson, to give a true picture of attendance for the dayand tackle internal truancy;• Provision of lap-tops, with appropriate radio link, rather than fixed desk-top computers, toenable staff to use them across classrooms or to work at home for lesson preparationalthough at some schools there were concerns with the possibility of theft;• Facility to produce attendance reports quickly;• Capacity to cope with the simultaneous ‘keying in’ of data;• Use of a default mode to alert teachers to any missing marks, before transmission tooffice takes place;• Facility to allow instant collation of data with percentage figures available on demand forheads of years;• Facility to highlight patterns of truancy, lateness and absence;• Facility to link assessment and attendance, especially for at-risk pupils;• Facility to provide attendance certificates showing all previous attendance;• Facility to track tutor group and teaching group attendance for a day;• Facility for an one-way messaging system, rather than placing a message in the paperregister;• Facility to create custom groups, enabling a member of staff to target a certain group ofchildren, for example, ‘looked- after’ pupils;• System that provides data that satisfy Ofsted requirements for performance data linkedto attendance data;• The inclusion of palm computers for PE lessons, assemblies and fire drills though insome schools there were concerns about the feasibility of wireless links because of thephysical arrangement of school buildings;74

• Remote access of data for EWO;• Facility for Truancy Call/Call Direct to free up time for admin staff (although is thisadvantage counterbalanced by the loss of personal contact with parents?);• A balance of information to be given on the screen, not too much to obstruct pupils'names;• Facility for the system to be used for inter-staff communication;• Transparency of costs, with no hidden cost with training for updates;• Reliability with the use of palm- tops, and also during updates;• Flexibility in allowing use of marks with explanatory details, such as: 'they were in school,but with so-and-so', additionally a mark for classwork and a mark for homework (this hasnot been possible with Lesson Monitor);• A colour code for students with particular needs, e.g., SEN;• Direct access for tutors to required data from a computer in their own room, eliminatingreliance on other members of staff; and• Software to give more than one day’s attendance at a glance, accessed through a singlecommand.6.5 RecommendationsAll the DfES suppliers presented e-registration as an integrated system, facilitating a rangeof functions in addition to am and pm registration. As a foundation for the successfulimplementation of e-registration, there is a need for schools to make an adequately informedchoice of system to suit their particular profile. Suppliers’ assertion that this does not alwayshappen is supported by the fact that several schools in our sample found a need to changetheir system, having discovered too late a mismatch between system and school profile.• We recommend, therefore, that a framework of guidance should be provided forschools prior to purchasing an e-registration system, supporting them in identifyingand prioritising their requirements.Information from the study and discussions with DfES and BECTA have highlighted thecapabilities and characteristics expected of e-registration systems that can monitor andmanage attendance effectively.• We recommend that the DfES, in collaboration with BECTA, should produce a list ofspecifications for e-registration systems.75

At the same time, we emphasize the commitment of school staff and other agencies (e.g.EWOs) that is needed to operate, analyse, interpret and act upon the data produced, andadd that for many members of staff at all levels this will entail learning and maintaining newskills.• We recommend that schools implement the following measures to engendercommitment to the initiative and support for new skills acquisition, acknowledging themeasures already taken by many schools:- Initial training of teaching staff to implement the attendance systemsaccurately;- Initial training for administrative staff to administer the system across theschool and produce reports;- Second level training in data analysis and the integration of attendance andother data (e.g. attainment);- Appropriate levels of ITC support staff and capability to maintain systemsand repair faults speedily;- A continuing programme of training to aid implementation of later additionsand upgrades to the e-registration system;- Develop a policy on the use of e-registration by supply teachers; and- Develop effective two-way liaison between the school and its EWO tooptimise use of e-registration data.The study has highlighted many cases where the redeployment of administrative staff,and/or creation of new posts has been necessitated by the production of more data with theadvent of e-registration, combined with the school’s increased focus upon attendanceissues, and the effects of compliance with new legislation on teachers’ contracts.• We recommend that schools embarking on e-registration consider carefully theimplications for staff resourcing, seeking out effective practice in other schools.Overall, for various reasons, schools expressed only sketchy knowledge of what their e-registration system had cost and what future level of costs might be incurred, though somewere optimistic that the system will prove its worth in terms of improvements in attendancelevels.76

• We recommend that where such knowledge is lacking, schools should engage fully incost/benefit analysis, including procurement and running costs such as repairs andupgrades.There is also a benefit in further, more detailed study of the systems in action, for survey andinterview data have provided evidence that schools do recognise e-registration as a usefultool in addressing attendance issues.• We recommend that the DfES should consider an examination of developing practicein relation to the linkage between high quality and timely attendance data, andplanned interventions.This work could include strategies that cover the whole pupil population, and those thatfocus on particular groups of children identified as at risk of poor attendance and pooreducational outcomes: these include looked after children, children of Black Caribbeanheritage, and pupils of White/Black Caribbean mixed heritage. This could be undertaken atboth school and local authority level as a basis for good practice guidelines.77

ReferencesArcher, M (1998). Disaffection: Affirmative Action. Special Children, 111, 27-29.Evans, R.J. (2000) The educational attainments and progress of children in public care.University of Warwick: Unpublished PhD Thesis.Ford, G. (1998). Career guidance mentoring for disadvantaged young people. Stourbridge:Institute of Careers Guidance.Garnett, L (1994) Education of children looked after. Humberside SSD and EducationDepartment. Unpublished paper. Humberside Local Authority.Morrris, M. & Rutt, S.(2004). Analysis of pupil attendance data in Excellence in Cities (EiC)areas: An interim report. Research Report RR 571. Nottingham: DfESOffice of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools (2001) Improving attendance andbehaviour in secondary schools. London: Ofsted.Office of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools (2002). Annual report of Her Majesty’sChief Inspector of Schools 2000/01. London: Ofsted.Social Exclusion Unit (1998) Truancy and school exclusion. London: HMSO.Social Services Inspectorate/Office for Standards in Education (1995) The education ofchildren who are looked after by local authorities. London: HMSO.Watts, A. (1999). Mind over a matter of exclusion. Careers Guidance Today, 7(1)18-26.Wicks, M (2000). Research to inform the development of the new Connexions Service.DfEE: Conference Summary Report.78

Appendix A MethodologyThe evaluation comprised four main strands. This ‘combined methods’ methods approachwas used because of the complexity of the project: the different factors were important toexamine on their own account, but also the interaction between factors. The evaluationrested on four main pillars:1. Quantitative analysis of the effect of the different systems on authorised andunauthorised absences2. Qualitative case studies of the use of the electronic registration systems3. A Questionnaire to non-case study participating schools on the use and effect of theelectronic registration system4. Cost effectiveness analysis of the different systemsIn addition, interviews were held with ten suppliers of e-registration systems.A.1 Case StudiesThe purpose of this strand was to examine the systems in operation through the accounts ofthose most involved. This method therefore allowed examination of the interaction betweensystems and schools, not just systems per se. As mentioned above, the case studies alsoallowed checks on the reliability of data used in the quantitative analyses.A.1.2 SchoolsThe aim was a sample of about 10% of eligible schools as case studies. Owing to a numberof difficulties discussed below the final sample was 46 schools, comprising cohorts of 21 and25 from the two phases of capital allocation 1 . The expectation was that cohort 1 would beevaluated over a period of about 3 plus years, and cohort 2 about 2 plus years. In practice,however, this was not possible as there were not such distinct phases. Also, and moreimportantly, the start up times for the schools were longer than anticipated, so reducing theoverall evaluation period. This reflected four main reasons. Firstly, the bidding, approval andprocurement process took a number of months. Secondly, installation times varieddepending on the system (e.g. the need for wiring or other hardware in some cases). Thirdly,1 Cohort 1 included a school which was not in the Project but had a long term experience of e-registration,including a change to a replacement system. It was included because of the lack of longer term experienceamong the sample due to the late start up.79

schools often wanted to start the system at the beginning of the school year, so delayingcommencement by a further period. Finally, some schools decided to implement e-registration in stages, testing out the system as they went. This therefore posed a problem indeciding from what time a school could be said to be using e-registration. Furthermore, thisdelay also required two attempts to identify the first cohort (see below).It had also been planned to examine the role of the local education authority (LEA), nowlocal authority (LA), in procurement, on the assumption that LEAs would support schools inmaking choices of systems. In the event, there was relatively little evidence of such activity.The case study schools were selected by examining key characteristics in sequence. Thefirst variable was schools’ chosen system, in order to achieve a total sample that reflectedthe relative proportions of schools selecting the different systems. The two most popular atthe first stage were Capita SIMS and Bromcom, and this continued to be the case. Selectionwas also designed to attempt to include schools as case studies for each available system,even if relatively rarely selected by the schools in the Capital Modernisation Project. Thiswas possible for cohort 1 but subsequently new systems used by very small numbers ofschools appeared and were not necessarily included as case studies. After systems used,schools were then selected taking into account LEA, urban/rural, size, and socialdisadvantage (although most schools were above average on the latter dimension).A two stage process of selection was necessary as it was not possible to use the entire firstgroup of 25 selected schools as, although listed a having been awarded the grant, they didnot have a system in operation. A second group of schools, based on the same criteria,was therefore selected from which to meet the number required for Phase 1. This provedsuccessful. However, initial discussions with school contacts revealed their implementationto be at an earlier stage than had been expected. Schools in the early stages ofimplementation gave some useful insights, but as they had relatively little to report aboutactual practice, we were keen not to over sample from this group. This, therefore, was atension during Phase 1 which was unavoidable for the evaluation project. The inclusion of aschool with a mature experience of e-registration but outside the Project was an attempt toidentify themes and experiences that could provide other useful perspectives (see AppendixE for a summary of school characteristics).Two visits were made to schools wherever possible. The first visits were carried out over thespring and summer 2003. First visits to cohort one took place from 3 March to 9 June 200380

and to cohort two from 23 October 2003 to 21 June 2004. All schools were contacted via thekey person specified in the DfES database. As noted above, the progress with the system’sdevelopment was identified at this point and a decision made whether to continue with theschool or to drop it from the sample and replace with another. In some cases it was decidedthat, despite problems, it would be reasonable to continue. For example, some schoolswere found to be due for closure or amalgamation. It was decided to retain one such schoolin this sample as their experience could still be informative. Finally, a small number of thirdvisits to cohort 1 schools were made at the end of the project (November – December 2005)to gain information longer term perspectives on their e-registration systems.A.1.2 InterviewsThe main methodology used in the case studies was the interviewing of key personnel,namely for each school: Education Welfare Officer, Administrative Officer, Member of SeniorManagement Team, Y7, Y10 and Y11 tutors. The focus was on years 10 and 11, where theproblem of absenteeism is most pronounced, and year 7, where attitudes to absenteeismmay be being shaped in pupils.Interviews were semi-structured using open questions supported by prompts, as thisensures both consistency with regards to questions asked of different interviewees and asufficient amount of flexibility to be able to respond to interviewee comments and allowinformation to emerge from the interviewee as well as from our pre-determined schedules.Depending upon the preference of the school and limitations of timetable constraints, groupinterviews of 2 or 3 tutors were used on occasion with the agreement (often the preference)of those interviewees. All interviews were recorded and field notes were made. Visits tocase study schools also provided an opportunity to see each system in action, and to gatherinformation from pupils and staff. In addition, documentary evidence was collected regardingpolicy development and implementation issuesThe first round of interviews addressed two broad themes. The first related to theintroduction and implementation of the electronic registration. The second related to thecontext of the school, both demographic and situational factors (e.g. distance travelled bypupils, academic achievement, make up of pupil roll, significant changes affecting theschool) and factors specific to attendance and behaviour (e.g. behaviour policies, perceivedlevels of problem, other initiatives). [DN: Should we include these schedules – there will beabout 10 in total].81

Copies of the main themes for the semi-structured interviews were sent to the school prior tothe visit to enable staff to consider their views in advance. Visits were made at the school’sconvenience on a day when as many of the specified interviewees as possible would beinterviewed. As had been expected, complete coverage was not always possible owing toother commitments. Also, given the early stage of development in some schools, weaccepted their advice that a smaller number of interviewees would be reasonable ascolleagues would not be sufficiently informed to add anything further.The second round of school visits was conducted during the period 10 May to 17 November2004 (cohort 1) and 18 June to 8 December 2005 (cohort 2). The second round of visitsreflected the more mature status of the e-registration system and so focussed more on thesystem in operation, its use for data collection and processing and its effectiveness,particularly in improving attendance. (See Appendix D for examples of interviewschedules).Table 10 Total numbers of Interviews carried outPhase 1 Phase 2Senior Management Team 52 44Year 7 tutors 35 23Year 10 tutors 29 35Year 11 tutors 27 26Attendance/Administration Officers 45 36Education Welfare Officers 38 24A.1.3 AnalysisThe interviews from the first round of interviews were analysed using both transcripts andfield notes. The analyses were examined by school and by interviewee. Firstly, all theinterview data from each school were used to produce an overview of the school withrespect to the electronic registration project. Secondly, all the interviews for each type ofinterviewee (e.g. members of the SMT) were analysed to identify perspectives, both acrossand between roles.82

A similar approach was adopted with the second round visits. The earlier data were alsodrawn upon to provide comparative data in terms of the development of the project anddevelopmental perspective as the systems ‘bedded in’ and then were fully operational.A.2 QuestionnaireTwo surveys were carried out of non-case study schools 2 . The first was distributed to 460schools during the summer term 2004. A total of 307 questionnaires were returned, aresponse rate of 66.7% which is very high for school surveys by current standards. Thesecond survey was distributed in November 2005 to 456 schools. A total of 299questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 65.6%%.The first survey explored the schools’ views on the early stages of the system includinginstallation, reliability, information provided, and early indications of impact. In addition,schools were asked what other absence reduction programmes they had in place and theirviews on the effectiveness of a range of strategies. Finally, schools were asked to rank nineapproaches to absence reduction, including e-registration.The second survey, undertaken toward the end of the project, was designed primarily toexamine schools’ views on the e-registration system in operation and its impact. Forcomparative purposes schools were again asked to judge a range of absence reductionprogrammes and their relative effectiveness.Copies of the questionnaire are included in Appendix B (2004) and C (2005).A.3 Quantitative analysis of the effect of the electronic registration systemsInvestigation of relationships between absence and other variables such as attainment wasbased upon the interrogation of DfES datasets for all schools in the sample, withcomparisons as appropriate with national statistics for other schools. This method haslimitations as the sample schools were not randomly selected but comprised the group ofabout 500 with highest levels of unauthorised absence. As such, they could be expected toshow differences from the norm on other dimensions, especially social disadvantage. Theseissues were therefore built into the analysis. Also, a basic assumption of these analyses is2 It was a condition of the DfES Star Chamber that, in order to reduce school workload, case study schoolsshould not also be included in the survey. This reduced the total sample for the survey by about 10%83

that the data in the DfES dataset are valid and reliable, an issue which we examined duringthe case studies.It is also important to acknowledge that the introduction of accurate recording may have theeffect of increasing recorded absence compared with schools which do not use e-registration, particularly the use of recording at each lesson. This could distort any apparentbenefit. This has been addressed in the discussion of resultsA.4 Value for moneySchools were asked to indicate costs of the system not only in terms of purchasing costs,but also staff time spent administering the system, maintenance, teacher time and hardwarecosts. However, it was found that schools were unable to produce reliable and valid (or, inmany cases, any) estimates of any of these factors other than purchasing costs.A suggestion was made to use a diary method to collect these data, but this was negativelyreceived by schools and, not unreasonably, seen as an indefensible additional burden onschools. As a result a question was included in the 2005 survey to schools and members ofSMT were specifically asked to comment on value for money during the second round ofinterviews. However, although members of SMT were willing to provide general commentsthere was a resistance to rating value for money on a 5-point scale as requested.This difficulty in obtaining valid and reliable data on costs points to the difficulty of collectingthis type of information in schools, but also suggests budgetary deficiencies that may hinderschools in their decision making regarding interventions and purchasing, as schoolsthemselves will in many cases not have a clear indication of, especially, indirect costs andtherefore no indication of cost effectiveness or value for money. This is a factor that needs tobe addressed in the management of schools if decision-making is to be optimized.84

Appendix B – 2004 QUESITONNAIREEVALUATION OF ELECTRONIC REGISTRATIONSchool Code:System Used:The following questions are specifically about the electronic registration system. Please choose oneanswer1. Did you previously have an attendance system using an optical mark readerYes # No #2. When was your new e-reg system first in operation (wholly or partly)mm##yy##A. Set-up of the system3. Installation of the system wasVeryPoorPoor Good VeryGoodNoneReceivedDon’tKnow4. Training provided in system operationwas5. Immediate after sales service wasB. Operation of the system – technological aspects6. The Electronic Registration System is reliableStronglyDisagreeDisagree Agree StronglyAgreeDon’t Know7. The system is adequate for the school’s needs8. The system is easy to useC. Operation of the system – information9. The system provides useful information onunauthorised absence10. The system provides useful information onauthorised absence11. The system provides easy comparison withother data (e.g. attainment)12. The system provides useful information togive to parents13. The system allows useful reports to beStronglyDisagreeDisagree Agree StronglyAgreeDon’t Know85

produced easily14. The more accurate recording allowed by thesystem has led to higher levels of recordedabsenceD. Impact on staff15. The system releases teaching staff time forother work16. The system releases admin staff time for otherwork17. The system improves collaboration with otheragencies (e.g. Education Welfare Service)StronglyDisagreeDisagree Agree StronglyAgreeDon’tKnowE. Impact on students18. Unauthorised absence has decreased as aresult of using the system19. Authorised absence has decreased as aresult of using the system20. Post registration truancy has decreased asa result of using the system21. Behaviour in school has improved as a result ofusing the system22. Improved attendance has led to more positiveperceptions of the school by the local communityStronglyDisagreeDisagree Agree StronglyAgreeDon’tKnowF. General views on the system23. So far the system has met our expectations24. We expect the system to become even moreuseful over the next yearStronglyDisagreeDisagree Agree StronglyAgreeDon’tKnow25. I would recommend this system to other schoolsThe next questions are about combating absence in your school more generally.26. Are you implementing any of the following strategies or programmes to help reduce absence in yourschool?Used in this schoolNot used in this schoolContacting parents on first day of absenceAnalysis of registers to highlight levels and patterns of nonattendanceTargets to reduce unauthorised absenceAwareness raising of attendance and timekeeping issues (egthrough displays, pupil work, leaflets for parents)Incentive schemes/celebration of good attendanceBreakfast clubsSchool-based Education Welfare OfficerLearning MentorConnexions Personal AdvisersHome-School Liaison OfficerAttendance OfficerBehaviour in Education Support (BEST) Teams (BehaviourImprovement Programme areas)86

Police in schools (Behaviour Improvement Programme areas)Governor with specific responsibility for attendanceOther – please state………………………….27. How effective do you think these strategies or programmes are in reducing absence?Contacting parents on first day ofabsenceAnalysis of registers to highlightlevels and patterns of nonattendanceTargets to reduce unauthorisedabsenceAwareness raising of attendanceand timekeeping issues (eg throughdisplays, pupil work, leaflets forparents)Incentive schemes/celebration ofgood attendanceBreakfast clubsSchool-based Education WelfareOfficerLearning MentorConnexions Personal AdvisersHome-School Liaison OfficerAttendance OfficerBehaviour in Education Support(BEST) Teams (BehaviourImprovement Programme areas)Police in schools (BehaviourImprovement Programme areas)Governor with specific responsibilityfor attendanceOther – pleasestate………………………….Highly effective Effective Ineffective HighlyineffectiveDon’t know/Notapplicable28. Please rank the following statements in order, from most likely to reduce absenteeism (rank as 1) to leastlikely to reduce absenteeism (rank as 9), with 1 indicating most likely to reduce absences, 2 second most likelyand so on.Developing good relationships with parentsHaving a clear discipline policyUsing an electronic registration systemUsing rewards for good attendanceUsing punishments for poor attendanceCreating a positive school climateFocussing on pupil achievementRank…….…….…….…….…….…….…….87

Punishing parents of persistent non-attenders…….Developing a relevant curriculum for disaffected pupilsThe following questions are about your school.…….29. Please rank the following goals in order of importance for your school from first to sixth, with 1 indicating mostimportant, 2 second most important goal and so on.High academic achievementA caring environmentA student-centred environmentDeveloping positive attitudes to learningDeveloping enterprising citizensEnhancing pupils’ self-esteem…….…….…….…….…….…….Please rate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements:30. In this school, a reward system is used as part ofbehaviour management31. In this school, we aim to develop students who trusttheir own feelings in making decisions32. In this school, parents are very involved withschool life33. In this school, teachers are protected fromunreasonable community and parental demands34. In this school, governors are actively involved indecision making and policy development35. In this school, teachers are involved in decisionmaking and policy development36. In this school, parents are involved in decisionmaking and policy development37 In this school, pupils are involved in decisionmaking and policy development38. In this school, the head provides clear, strongleadership39. In this school we have a clear set of rules forbehaviour that are rigorously enforced40. In this school students are involved in settingschool rules41. In this school, pupils and teachers get on well42. In this school students respect one another43. In this school, misbehaviour is immediatelypunished44. In this school, all parents encourage their children toattend school at all timesStronglyDisagreeDisagree Agree StronglyAgreeDon’tKnow45. Please describe your role in the school………………………………………………………………………………………………………………46. How long have you been working in your current position? ………….years47. Are you female or male? Female MalePlease return in the reply paid envelope to Mrs Jean McElroy, CEDAR, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7Alby Wednesday 9 th June 2004. Thank you for your co-operation!APPENDIX C – 2005 QUESTIONNAIRE88

School Code:EVALUATION OF ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION1. What e-registration system are you using?………………………………………………………………………………2. Is this different from that which was originally installed as part of this programme.Yes # No #If yes: a) which system did you previously use?………………………………………………………………………………b) Why did you change?……………………………………………………………………………...A. Operation of the system – technological aspects3. The Electronic Registration System is reliableStronglyDisagreeDisagree Agree StronglyAgreeDon’tKnow4. The system is adequate for the school’s needs5. The system is easy to useB. Operation of the system – information6. The system provides useful information onunauthorised absence7. The system provides useful information onauthorised absence8. The system provides useful lesson by lessonmonitoring.StronglyDisagreeDisagree Agree StronglyAgreeDon’tKnow9. The system provides easy comparison withother data (e.g. attainment)10. The system provides useful information to give toparents11. The system allows useful reports to beproduced easily12. The more accurate recording allowed by thesystem has led to higher levels of recordedabsenceC. Impact on staff13. The system releases teaching staff time forother work14. The system releases admin staff time for otherwork15. The system improves collaboration with otheragencies (e.g. Education Welfare Service)StronglyDisagreeDisagree Agree StronglyAgreeDon’tKnowD. Impact on students89

16. Unauthorised absence has decreased as aresult of using the system17. Authorised absence has decreased as aresult of using the system18. Post registration truancy has decreased asa result of using the system19. Behaviour in school has improved as a result ofusing the system20. Improved attendance has led to more positiveperceptions of the school by the local communityStronglyDisagreeDisagree Agree StronglyAgreeDon’tKnowE. General views on the system21. E-registration has helped my school to manageabsence more effectively.22. E-registration provides good value for moneyStronglyDisagreeDisagree Agree StronglyAgreeDon’tKnow23. My views of e-registration have become morepositive over the course of the project24. I would recommend this system to other schoolsF. The next questions are about combating absence in your school more generally.25. How effective do you think these strategies or programmes are in reducing absence?Contacting parents on first day ofabsenceAnalysis of data to highlight levelsand patterns of non-attendanceTargets to reduce unauthorisedabsenceAwareness raising of attendance andtimekeeping issues (eg throughdisplays, pupil work, leaflets forparents)Incentive schemes/celebration ofgood attendanceBreakfast clubsSchool-based Education WelfareOfficerLearning MentorConnexions Personal AdvisersHome-School Liaison OfficerAttendance OfficerBehaviour in Education Support(BEST) Teams (BehaviourImprovement Programme areas)Police in schools (BehaviourImprovement Programme areas)Governor with specific responsibilityfor attendanceOther – pleasestate………………………….Highly effective Effective Ineffective HighlyineffectiveDon’tknow/Notapplicable90

26. Please rank the following statements in order, from most likely to reduce absenteeism (rank as 1) to leastlikely to reduce absenteeism (rank as 9), with 1 indicating most likely to reduce absences, 2 second most likelyand so on.RankDeveloping good relationships with parents…….Having a clear discipline policy…….Using an electronic registration system…….Using rewards for good attendance…….Using punishments for poor attendance…….Creating a positive school climate…….Focussing on pupil achievement…….Punishing parents of persistent non-attenders…….Developing a relevant curriculum for disaffected pupils…….27. Please describe your role in the school………………………………………………………………………………………………………………28. How long have you been working in your current position? ………….years29. Are you female or male? Female MalePlease return in the reply paid envelope to Mrs Jean McElroy, CEDAR, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7Alby Wednesday 14 th December. Thank you for your co-operation!91

APPENDIX D INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR 2 ND VISITSElectronic Registration Project: second visit to schoolsIn Appendix D we provide the four interview schedules used in phase 2. In order to savespace these are presented in a compact form.Interview Schedule: Senior Management TeamSCHOOL NAME:ELECTONIC SYSTEM:INTERVIEWER:INTERVIEWEE:INTERVIEWEE’S POSITION:DATE:A. Update on stage of implementationIntroduction: At time of last visit you were at the stage of……..• Can you tell me how things have moved on (Prompt: solving teething problems, training,receipt of more equipment/software)• How long has it taken from the time when the decision was taken to introduce the presentelectronic registration system, to the present stage of implementation?• Are there any new school policies in place to address attendance issues?• Are there any new school policies in place to address issues with behaviour?B. Impact of e-reg on aspects of attendanceWould you say that the introduction and development of e-registration has had any impact onthe following (and if yes, in what way)?• Actual number of absences (authorised and unauthorised)• Internal truancy• Lateness• Increasing academic achievement in literacy and numeracy• Reducing anti-social incidents by absent pupils (outside the school)• Improving students’ behaviour while in school• Any other academic and social/pastoral benefits to pupils?C. Impact of e-registration upon relationshipsWould you say that the introduction/development of e-registration has had any impact on thefollowing (and if so, in what ways)?• Building better home-school relationships• Facilitating teacher-pupil interactions• Facilitating interactions with the EWS/EWO• Improving the overall professional image of the schoolD Impact of e-registration upon attitudesWould you say that the introduction/development of e-registration has had any impact on thefollowing?• Parental attitudes to attendance issues• Pupils’ attitudes towards attending school/individual lessons• Teaching staff attitudes towards registration• Staff approaches to guidance, counselling, disciplinary procedures• The approach of admin. staff to their work in relation to attendanceE New ways in which data from the system is being used92

Have there been changes in the following?• Ways that senior management staff use the date produced• Ways that teaching staff use the data collected• Ways that admin staff use the data produced• Ways the EWO and EWS use the data produced• Providing a comprehensive set of data regarding absences for the LEA• Are any data for any groups of pupils marked out separately by the system, e.g. gender, ethnicity,looked after children?Are there systems in place which enable links to be made between attendance and attainment data?• Does this happen effectively? How?F Views on the electronic system used• What are your views of [the system you are using] as an information system (prompt:reducing bureaucracy, freeing time for teaching staff, admin. staff.)• How much time is spent on registration, and by whom? (compare with previous systemused)• If less time is now spent on registration, what other activities are you able to undertake asa result of the time saved?• If more time is now spent, is there anything which could improve this?• Could your day-to-day engagement with the system be better? (prompt: in terms of thesoftware, technical back-up, ways in which the data is used)• Is the system able to produce the data you need in the event of fire drill? If not, how do youcheck the pupils?G. Reliability and effectiveness of the system• What are your views on the reliability and effectiveness of the hardware and software?H. Support from providers• What are your views on the quality of support from providers in terms ofresponse timesuccess in sorting out problemsI. Cost Effectiveness• How cost effective has the system been in terms of value for money?(prompt: were there hidden costs, e.g. maintenance of laptops or other hardware; pricing of newfacilities/spares/new additions to package, need for further training)• How would you rate cost effectiveness on a scale of 1-5?1 = extremely 2 = very 3 = fairly 4 = not very 5 = not at allJ. Do you have any plans for further changes to the system?K. Anything else you would like to comment upon about the system?Electronic Registration Project: second visit to schools93

Interview Schedule: Admin StaffSCHOOL NAME:ELECTONIC SYSTEM:INTERVIEWER:INTERVIEWEE:INTERVIEWEE’S POSITION:DATE:A Update on stage of implementationIntroduction: At the time of last visit you were at the stage of……….• Can you tell me how things have moved on (Prompt: solving teething problems, training,receipt of more equipment/software)• How long has it taken from the time when the decision was taken to introduce the presentelectronic registration system, to the present stage of implementation?B. Impact of e-reg on aspects of attendanceWould you say that the introduction and development of e-registration has had any impact onthe following (and if yes, in what way?)• Actual number of absences (authorised and unauthorised)• Internal truancy• Lateness• Increasing academic achievement in literacy and numeracy• Reducing anti-social incidents by absent pupils (outside the school)• Improving students’ behaviour while in school• Any other academic and social/pastoral benefits to pupils?C. The impact of e-reg on attitudes and relationshipsWould you say that the introduction/development of e-registration has had any impact on thefollowing?• Parental attitudes to attendance issues• Pupils’ attitudes towards registration• The approach of admin staff to their work in relation to attendance• Staff approaches to guidance, counselling, disciplinary procedures• Improving the overall professional image of the schoolD New ways in which data from the system is being used. Have there been changes in• Ways that admin. staff use the data produced? (or if system was really not implemented at time flast visit, what do you do with the data and how does this differ from the previous system?)• Ways that senior management staff use the data produced• Ditto teaching staff• Ditto EWO and EWS• Providing a comprehensive set of data regarding absences for the LEA• Are data for any groups of pupils marked out separately by the system, e.g.gender, ethnicity, looked after children?Are there systems in place with enable links to be made between attendance and attainment data?• Does this happen effectively? How?E. Views on the electronic system used• What are your views of [the system you are using] as an information system (prompt:reducing bureaucracy, freeing time for admin. staff, teachers)• How much time is spent on registration, and by whom? (compare with previous systemused)94

• If less time is now spent on registration, what other activities are you able to undertake asa result of the time saved?• If more time is now spent, is there anything which could improve this?• Could your day-to-day engagement with the system be better? (prompt: in terms of thesoftware, technical back-up, ways in which the data is used)• Is the system able to produce the data you need in the event of fire drill? (If not, how do youcheck the pupils?)F. What are your views on the reliability and effectiveness of the hardware and software?G. Support from providers• What are your views on the quality of support from providers in terms ofResponse timeSuccess in sorting out problems.H. Cost Effectiveness• How cost effective has the system been in terms of value for money?(prompts: were there hidden costs, e.g. maintenance of laptops or other hardware; pricing of newfacilities/spares/new additions to package, need for further training).• How would you rate its cost effectiveness on a scale of 1-51 = extremely 2 = very 3 = fairly 4 = not very 5 = not at allI. Are there any plans for further changes/additions to the system?J. Is there anything else you would like to say about the system you are using?95

Electronic Registration Project Second Visits to schoolsInterview Schedule: EWOSCHOOL NAME:ELECTONIC SYSTEM:INTERVIEWER:INTERVIEWEE:INTERVIEWEE’S POSITION:DATE:At the time of our last meeting (e.g.. in March 2003), you mentioned that the school’s main problemregarding attendance is (e.g. prompt: getting the pupils into school, pupils truanting during the schoolday, lateness, holidays taken during school time).A. School’s main challenge in trying to improve attendance• Would you say this is still the most significant problem as regards attendance?• Have you noticed any improvement?• If so, how do you account for this?• Are there any new school/LEA policies in place to address attendance issues?• Are there any new school/LEA policies in place to address issues with behaviour?B Impact of e-reg on aspects of attendanceWould you say that introduction and development of e-registration has had any impact on thefollowing (if yes, in what ways)?• Actual number of absences (authorised and unauthorised)• Internal truancy• Lateness• Across curriculum subjects (or in certain subjects)• A differential impact on pupils, e.g. pupils with very low attendance• Are data for any groups of pupils marked out separately by the system, e.g. gender, ethnicity,looked after children?• Demographic profiles of pupils who benefited most and least• Increasing academic achievement in literacy and numeracy• Reducing anti-social incidents by absent pupils (outside the school)• Improving students’ behaviour• Linking with attainment data for school improvement purposes.C. Impact of e-reg on relationshipsWould you say that the introduction/development of e-registration has had any impact on thefollowing (and if so, in what ways?)• The quality of your links with the school• Building better school/ home relationships• Making parents aware of their children’s attendance• Promotion of positive teacher-pupil interactions• Promotion of positive teacher-parent interactionsGuidance, counselling, disciplinary procedures•D. Impact of e-registration upon attitudesWould you say that the introduction/development of e-registration has had any impact on thefollowing?• Parental attitudes to attendance issues?• Pupils’ attitudes towards attending school/individual lessons• Staff approaches to guidance, counselling, disciplinary procedures• The approach of admin staff to their work in relation to attendance?96

E. What do you do with the data you collect from the electronic system? (Has this changedwith the implementation of the system you are now using?)• Within the school• Within the LEAF. Views on the electronic system used• What are your views on the electronic system used as an information system : (prompt:reducing bureaucracy, freeing time for teaching, admin. staff), supporting staff collaboration)• Could your day to day engagement with the system be better? (prompts, inrespect of the software, technical back-up, ways in which the data is used).G. Is there anything else you would like to say about the system?97

Electronic Registration Project Second VisitsInterview Schedule: Year tutorsSCHOOL NAME:ELECTONIC SYSTEM:INTERVIEWER:INTERVIEWEE:INTERVIEWEE’S POSITION:DATE:A. Update on stage of implementationAt the time of my last visit in (specify the date) you were just about to ……Can you tell me in what ways things have moved on (prompt: solving teething problems withsoftware, training, receipt of more equipment., receipt of more software, any other changes)• Are there any new policies in place to address attendance issues?• Are there any new policies in place to address behaviour issues?•B. Impact of e-reg on aspects of attendance and behaviourWould you say that the introduction and development of e-registration has had any impact onthe following (and if yes, in what way)?• Actual number of absences (authorised and unauthorised)• Internal truancy• Lateness• Reducing anti-social behaviour by absent pupils (out of school)• Improving students’ behaviour while in school• Increasing academic achievement in literacy and numeracy• Any other academic/social benefits to pupilsC. Impact of e-reg on attitudes and relationshipsWould you say that the introduction/development of e-registration has had any impact on• Parental attitudes to attendance issues• Building better home-school relationships• Pupils’ attitudes towards attending school/individual lessons• Facilitating teacher-pupil interactions• Your own attitudes towards registration• Your approaches to guidance, counselling, disciplinary proceduresD. Have there been changes in• Ways that you use the data produced• Ways that the SMT uses the data• Ways that admin. staff use the data• Ditto EWO and EWS• Are data for any groups of pupils marked out separately by the system, e.g. gender, ethnicity,looked after children?• Are there systems in place which enable links to be made between attendance and attainmentdata?• Does this happen effectively? How? (Or, why not?)E. Views on the electronic registration systemWhat are your views on the electronic system you use? (prompt: reducing bureaucracy ; freeingtime for teaching staff, admin. staff.)• How much time do you spend on this; (compare with previous registration systems).• If time is saved, what other activities are you able to undertake as a result of the time saved?• If time taken is increased, is there anything which could improve this?• Could your day-to-day engagement with the system be better? (prompts, in respect of thesoftware, technical back-up, ways in which the data is used)• Is the system able to produce the data you need in the event of fire drill? If not, how do youcheck the pupils?F. Are there plans for any further changes/additions to the system you areusing?Is there anything else you would like to say about the system?98

Appendix ECase study SchoolsCohort 1School A: A mixed social context was described, with emphasis on concentrated areas ofdeprivation, but there are also working class and professional people in employment withdisposable income. The LEA has developed an increasingly rigorous stage process fordealing absences, culminating in worst cases in a court appearance.School B: Located in a small (perhaps soon to be ex-) mining community, the school isdescribed as the focal point of the village. There is a large amount of social deprivation, yetsome modern housing in the catchment area. Most of the 700 pupils arrive on foot.School C: This school is situated at the edge of a poor catchment area. Some pupils travelby public bus from the 3 main areas serving the school, a lot walk. Unemployment is a majorproblem. There are frequent exclusions and a high turnover of pupils through key stagesdue to family break-up. The school is eligible for Excellence in Cities funding - £75,000.School D: This was described as a very multicultural school, with 85 languages spoken asa first language. The school draws from an extremely wide catchment area, some pupilsfacing up to 2 hours travelling a.m. and p.m. Travel is mainly by normal service buses, whichsometimes fail to pick up pupils at stops. Over 25% of the pupils are on free school meals.School E: This is essentially an inner city school, described as very challenging in terms ofpupil behaviour and background. While the catchment has recently changed for the better,the school is currently just 4 free school meals below the threshold for ‘extra challengingcircumstance’ which the school claims has meant a 70K cut in budget.School F: The social context was described as becoming more challenging. A councilestate surrounds the school, but increasing numbers of pupils are coming from all areas ofthe inner city. 30% travel some distance, only a dozen pupils arrive by car.School G: This school has a broad catchment area, many pupils bussing in. It is set on theedge of a city, with 4 buildings on the site. On one side the school is bounded by woodland,but outside the gates is a busy dual carriageway leading either into the city or to a motorway.School H: The social context of the school was described in terms of economic deprivationand its isolated situation. This isolation was credited with pupils’ perception of school bustransport as a social event not to be missed, in the absence of alternative warm and dryalternatives.School I: Many of the pupils are from outside the Authority, and deprivation was recorded interms of free school meals (39/40%). There are many ethnic minority pupils and a highproportion of asylum seekers.School J: This school serves two communities that are quite distinct in terms of socioeconomicstatus. One is characterised as working class/lower middle class and the otherhas a high rate of unemployment and limited socio-economic opportunities.School K: The school is located in a relatively poor area with some working class familiesand a high level of unemployment. The school maintains good links with all the feederprimary schools, especially the Catholic primary ones.99

School L: The socio-economic context of the school ranges from ‘lower middle class topoor background’ with most pupils residing locally. Almost all parents want their children toattend regularly, but a minority of parents allow their children to miss school for minor illness.School M: The school is located in an area with a strong history of manufacture, and overall,the levels of unemployment are low. However, generations of factory working are linked withan apparent lack of parental aspiration. Also, there is a high incidence of non-nuclear family.School N: The immediate locality is city suburbian semi- detached housing, but manypupils come from outside the borough. There are over 60 feeder schools, limiting students’opportunities to develop home-school links.School O: The school is set in a working class social context, and the high rural populationwas perceived to explain the lower aspirations of its pupils. While achievement levels weredescribed as about the average, fluctuations were accredited to the small size of the school.School Q Formerly a local community, the catchment area is now a commuter belt on thefringes of the highly deprived area of a major city. Over 5/6 years, the catchment area hasshrunk, but the school has grown, taking a higher proportion of students from nearby.Served by 5 school buses, a lot walk to school, a few arrive by car.School R: The 3-4 wards served by the school fall in the bottom 1% in the country for socialdeprivation. However, many parents are employed, though in low paid jobs. Only about 10parents were thought to be in professional/managerial careers, very few with experience ofHE. Students arrive at school by bus, foot, or sometimes by car.School S: The catchment area was described as very mixed, including a deprived area ofhigh unemployment in the village itself, but with quite affluent surrounding villages. At thelower end, deprivation is described as quite serious with very low, or no, incomeSchool T: The school serves about six wards where the indices are in the E* category, andis eligible for maximum funding allowances. Money for the e-reg upgrade came from anumber of sources: the Standards Fund, EAS/RAP/School improvement, and Outline BidNeighbourhood Renewal. The catchment area comprises largely council estates, and thereis high unemployment..School U: The school was to close at the end of the year and will re-open in September2003. It is not known which staff if any (including the head and deputy) will be re-employed.Situated in an area of social deprivation, the school is close to two single sex schoolsfavoured by parents. Many of the pupils live within walking distance, though some arebussed in.Note: The schools above represent the complete sample: letter “P” was inadvertentlyomitted when assigning letters to the schoolsCohort 2School U2: This school has designated rural deprivation status, though also drawing onvery middle class areas in nearby towns, from which about half the overwhelmingly whitepupils are bussed in.School V2: Pupils come to the school from a variety of economic backgrounds and fromabout 20 feeder schools in other urban areas and small villages. There are schools in thearea which select on ability. About 8% of pupils have English as a second language,.100

School W2: The school is situated on one of the largest council estates in Europe, likenedto a small town, but lacking the infrastructure of adequate facilities to support residents. Thepupils are mainly white.School X2: A mixed catchment area was described, but with quite high social deprivation,52% of pupils receiving free school meals. While the vast majority of pupils are whiteBritish, the school has at least 13 nationalities, though there are few language problems.School Y2: The school is situated just off a city ring road, surrounded by housing estates.It is in an SRB5 designated area, described as an aspirational area of the city. The majorityof pupils are British white, but with about 20% minority ethnic, plus about 9% Jewishchildren.School Z2: This is an urban school, but with fields visible beyond the school playing field.Terraced housing, occupied by lower income families are adjacent to some very middleclass housing developments, though in recent years the school’s intake has includedchildren from a housing estate described as very rough.School A2: The school is situated about a mile from the town centre, on a housing estatewith older, more dilapidated houses adjacent. It is described as an urban school, thoughopen countryside is visible from the site. About 7% ethnic minority children but someschools in the area have 70% minority ethnic attendance.School B2: Situated perhaps a mile from a main shopping centre, this urban school issurrounded by a high boundary fence for security. The school is highly multi-cultural and themajority have a mother tongue other than English. The multicultural breakdown of staff wasaccredited with the reported tension free racial integration.School C2: This urban school is situated on another of the largest housing estates inEurope, in a rather run down area now occupied by white working class families. Somechildren are bussed in from an adjacent “rougher” area, which also houses the few minorityethnic children who attend the school.School D2: About one third of the pupils come from beyond the catchment area, from theinner city. The catchment area is predominantly white, but there is a mix of minority ethnicpupils from the inner city area. There is a mix of social classes, while pockets of deprivationare not so marked as is the case in other areas of the city.School E2: The school is located in an ex-miner community with a high incidence of nonnuclearfamily groupings. The social context was described as mixed, with children fromboth poor and middle class estates attending the school.School F2: The market town in which this school is situated is too large to enable theschool to be classified as rural, although the area has a rural feel. There are manysurrounding villages which feed the school. The mainly white school population covers awide social spectrum.School G2: The school fronts onto a main road into a major city and there is large scalesocio-economic deprivation among the pupils. The pupils are mainly white, but there aresignificant numbers of a variety of minority ethnic children, and most come from local homes.101

School H2: This is a Roman Catholic school for boys, due to close in 2005, amalgamateand re-open as a City Academy. Pupils typically travel about 40 minutes to the school. Theschool is ethnically mixed, also mixed in social terms, though with slightly more from asocially disadvantaged background.School I2: This inner city school for boys is a Sixth Form Centre. The intake is very variedsocially, with the immediate surroundings affluent, but the school also draws from verydeprived areas of the city. Whites are in the minority and English is a second language for57% of the pupils.School J2: The catchment area surrounding this rural school, situated in a fairly largevillage, was described as enormous. Most of the almost exclusively white pupils live in thevillage, but one third are bussed in from small villages up to 30 miles distant.School K2: The school is situated close to a city shopping centre. Although there is a verywide ethnic mix, with many home languages, white children predominate. The school has ahigh proportion of SEN pupils. The social mix is variable, some pupils travelling in from a farless affluent area than that which surrounds the school.School L2: In the east of a large northern city, this Catholic school serves a large,elongated catchment area, including some of the city’s most deprived wards. It has a highproportion of pupils with special needs and eligibility for free school meals, and an ethnicallydiverse intake. Many pupils travel considerable distances. The school has moved from asplit to a single site, undergoing major rebuilding.School M2: This city school was recently identified as requiring special measures. Pupilsarrive from two of the worst wards in the city in terms of deprivation. About three quartersare minority ethnic pupils, with nearly half having English as a second language. The schoolpopulation is highly mobile, with many asylum seekers.School N2: Though set in a quiet village location and overlooking open countryside, theschool was described as definitely not rural. Only 7 minority ethnic children attend theschool, which draws from poor council estates as well as attracting more affluent commuters’children.School O2: Situated in a leafy lane suburb, the school was described as one of the mostethnically mixed in the country. Though situated in a relatively prosperous looking area ofthe city, the school takes pupils also from much less affluent areas, including the city centre.School P2: This school is situated in a very middle class area of a city, but has a verymixed social intake of pupils. There is a fairly small number of minority ethnic pupils (about10 in each year). The school is oversubscribed.School Q2: The school’s intake is from both the nearby traditional council estate and higherquality housing in the immediate vicinity. In addition, children come from inner city areas,and there is high unemployment in the area. Over half receive free school meals. ThisCatholic school has a mainly white intake.102

School R2: This outer city school serves local housing estates and is a BehaviourImprovement Programme school. The school was described as a truly multiculturalcomprehensive, attended by a large number of minority ethnic groups, apart from the 50%white British children. There are pockets of social deprivation.School S2: The school serves a number of housing estates, one described as very middleclass, others which are less prosperous and contain pockets of deprivation, occupied bymany single parent families. There are high levels of unemployment. The ethnic mix is quitediverse, but with many white pupils.103

Appendix F Full version of Table 8: Effectiveness of strategies/ programmes inreducing absence2004 2005Type of strategy/ Highly Effective Ineffective DN/ NA Highly Effective Ineffective DN/NAinitiativeEffectiveEffectiveContacting parents at 36.5 57.5 2.7 3.3 49.7 46.2 2.1 1.7first day of absenceAnalysis for levels 26.2 70.1 1.7 2.0 28.4 68.5 1.4 1.0and patterns ofabsenceTargets to reduce 11.1 65.5 15.2 7.1 13.9 59.4 21.2 3.5unauthorisedabsenceAwareness raising of 12.2 64.2 8.1 15.5 15.5 69.1 7.2 7.9attendance/timekeepingIncentives /22.5 66.4 5.7 5.0 25.7 65.1 2.7 6.2celebration of goodattendanceBreakfast clubs 6.7 38.5 9.5 43.8 9.4 36.8 16.7 35.8School-based EWO 32.9 36.4 3.2 27.2 34 43.3 2.1 19.6Learning Mentor 20.8 45.1 4.5 29.5 21 55.3 1.7 21.6Connexions Personal 7.7 50.5 20.9 18.1 5.3 46.8 22.5 22.5AdviserHome-school liaison 16.9 27.2 2.9 52.9 17.5 33.7 0.7 47.7officerAttendance officer 37.2 41.8 0.4 20.6 40.3 42.4 2.1 14.8BEST 3.7 17.1 4.1 74.7 5.7 23.7 9.9 59.4Police 4.9 18 4.5 71.8 8.6 26.1 6.8 58.2Governor 3.3 18.8 9.6 67.3 3.5 24.8 14.5 55.0Note: Data for ‘highly ineffective’ has been omitted as so few gave these ratings104

Copies of this publication can be obtained from:DfES PublicationsP.O. Box 5050Sherwood ParkAnnesleyNottinghamNG15 0DJTel: 0845 60 222 60Fax: 0845 60 333 60Minicom: 0845 60 555 60Oneline: www.dfespublications.gov.uk© CEDAR, University of Warwick 2006Produced by the Department for Education and SkillsISBN 1 84478 747 8Ref No: RR759www.dfes.go.uk/research